I ban a law on filibustering in parliament. I assumed that a filibuster was non-stop speaking by a minority group, restricting the flow of parliament. Surely it is correct to put a stop to this, by placing 30 minute restrictions for a legth of a speach. But after doing this my nation has been escribed as a clear case of tyranny by majority. WHY?!?!?! :eek:
Probably because a filibuster is a tool by the minority party or parties to prevent laws they don't like from getting enacted. If a bill is killed by filibuster, it may force the majority party to make concessions to the minority to get a version of that bill passed.
If you prohibit filibustering, the majority will win just about all the time. (Note I said just about all the time. If enough members of the majority party cross party lines and vote against a measure, it can still be defeated).
When I banned filibusters, my political rights decreased, and when I later allowed them, political rights rose to excellent. This issue seems to have a pretty significant effect. It's one of the few Political Rights issues, which aren't nearly as common as the Civil Rights issues.
I would view a filibuster as an impediment to democracy, but that's because my party's in power in the US Senate. Filibusters of judicial appointees are thwarting the will of the ruling party.
and get them to end the filibuster on your terms. Make it sweet enough and they'll end the debate.