Our political system is comprised of two parties with opposite views on important topics. When the representatives of these parties experience more constraint to vote towards their parties stance on issues they are less likely to compromise and therefore get less accomplished. This is called political polarization. Political polarization is the cause of reoccurring stalemates, numerous fiscal budget crises, and a growing distrust in Congress and its ability to function. Polarization slows the lawmaking process, preventing new bills from reaching the floor and current ones to stay there for months. …show more content…
The filibuster is one of the most deliberate factors used when attempting to impede the passing of a controversial bill in Congress. It is curious that it might also be one of the easiest factors to alter that have advantageous effect on time bills are debated on the House and Senate floor. “Probably the one thing that we can change without a constitutional amendment that would make a difference here would be the elimination of the routine use of the filibuster in the Senate. Because I think that does, in an era in which the parties are more polarized, it almost ensure greater gridlock and less clarity in terms of the positions of the parties” (Barak Obama). The filibuster was designed so that the minority opinion on the topic gets to voice their opinion and maybe sway some in their favor. But the constant use of the filibuster has a negative effect on the law making process. It delays Congress, further polarizes the parties, and torques the control away from the majority party so significantly that the laws being passed don’t govern effectively. To get rid of or reduce the use of the filibuster would help re-center the balance between majority and minority, and increase the amount of bills that Congress can vote on and continue to move …show more content…
In other countries it is illegal for the controlling party to manipulate the electoral boundaries in such a manner that the acting party gains even more of a majority. But in the United States this action is very legal and being employed every year (Yglesias). It prevents voters from electing who they want the majority in Congress to be and instead gives Congress the opportunity to keep the majority party. For example, 2012 in Pennsylvania, Democrats won the states popular vote (51%) but because gerrymandering was implemented, Republicans won 72% of the seats in the House (Yglesias). To fix this unbalance multimember districts could be enacted, making the state one district and giving voters the opportunity to fairly elect who they want in Congress. We could learn from other countries that employ this tactic successfully. “You could easily treat the state as one 27-member district whose members are elected proportionately. That's how they do it in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and many other countries that prefer not to be beset by highly politicized district boundary questions” (Yglesias). If this was employed the United States government would then reflect the opinions of its citizens and not political bias.
The filibuster and gerrymandering are legal because Congress has taken steps to ensure they are. A law involving gerrymandering was passed in 1967 that banned multimember