Should the majority get to set the agenda and control new legislation?

Question

Whichever party has the majority controls committee chairmanship assignments. They also control what legislation gets to the floor for debate and approval. This includes who gets to include an earmark and which earmarks.

Having a majority represents the will of the ppl but this seems to be a little too far reached... controlling new legislation.

Btw it is a little more complicated... the minority can summit legislation for a vote to even be considered but trust me, the majority really has the say in the end... that's politics today.

If you agree that this is too much power to one party, how can it be fixed?

Answer 1

Only way to fix it is to throw out both Republican and Democrat parties and start three new ones.

Not likely to happen. As bad as it is, neither party wants to lose the advantage when the advantage is theirs and neither party wants the influence of a viable third party.
Heres a thought... simplistic by a thought...
Create a non-partisan commission that sets the agenda and guides the legislation. One way to make sure that legislation gets its fair chance on the floor is to set up "lots" of pieces of legislation that before you can move onto the next "lot" all current pieces of legislation in the current lot have to be decided on. I guarantee you one thing... Joe Blow Republican isn't going to want to hold up John Doe Democrats legislation if Joe Blows sponsored legislation is in the next lot.

Answer 2

I hope I am not being naive, but does it not all rest in the veto of the President? I mean how powerful is powerful if a majority cannot get anything past an opposing President? What is placed before congress may be in the hands of the majority, but unless it makes it through veto, it carries no weight; of course unless there is enough of a vote out of partisan constraints. This so called majority power will not only be ineffective with a vetoing President, but may result in an under accomplishing congress and senate by virtue of nothing pass the President. Hence there may be no power in being a majority. All this presumes the president is in opposition to the majority. Am I off beat here?

Answer 3

Man are people hard on you for being number 1 in best answers, they just don't show no respect. Yes that is the way it is and that is the way it should be and really the only way to fix it is a viable third party or a number of independents. But it has really worked up until now and I think if congress moves towards the middle with the election of moderates then it will work well again.

Answer 4

Tell me honestly, would you be asking this question if the Republican party was in the majority? Perhaps yes, but I just find this coincidental that it comes shortly after an election when the house changed majority parties.
It's true it isn't an ideal system, but I don't see how it could be different and be respectful of the majority vote. You certainly don't want the minority to control the agenda, and you don't want it done by flipping a coin either. So what choice is there?
EDIT:
Sorry, I stand corrected. Your question was not politically motivated.