When considering whether the minority party in the United States Senate ought to have the traditional right to maintain to filibuster against extremist legislative action in the exception of a 60-vote decision to stop the filibuster, one ought to consider how the Republicans came to be the majority party in the Senate.
You see, every state, no matter how few people live in it, is entitled, according to the U.S. Constitution, to be represented in the U.S. Senate by two, and never more than two, people. That means that people of New York State and California, even though they live in very populous states, get no more representation in the United States Senate than the people of Wyoming and Alaska do, even though by comparison, almost nobody lives in those states.
The result is that the popular majority of Americans can vote against the nationwide slate of senatorial candidates of a particular party and still not have their democratic wishes represented. This dynamic is exactly what has given the Republican Party control over the United States Senate.
In the three elections that have given us the current slate of Senators (elections divided into 33% in 2000, 33% in 2002, and 33% in 2004), Democratic candidates received 99.7 million votes, whereas the Republican candidates received only 97.3 million votes. If the Senate were elected by nationwide popular vote, the Democrats would control the Senate. The Senate Republicans do not have a popular mandate, and yet, they are pushing through a radical, theocratic agenda against American liberty as if they did.
Traditional mechanisms like the right to filibuster were designed to mitigate the undue influence of a small number of inhabitants of sparsely populated states, like Wyoming and Alaska. Unbalanced and unrestrained extremism will be the result if Bill Frist and his Republican cadre of fundamentalist Senators from small states are allowed to use the nuclear option and destroy the filibuster.
Luckily, even if the Senate Republicans go nuclear, the popular Democratic majority has the ability to organize to overthrow the tyranny of small minds in the Senate. In 2006, one third of US Senators face re-election. If the Democrats can gain only two seats, the Republican unpopular majority rule of the Senate will come to an end.
“If the Senate were elected by nationwide popular vote, the Democrats would control the Senate.”
I’m a little puzzled by what this author is really trying to say here.
I can understand his dismay at the Senate being controlled by Republicans. However to make the statement above suggest that he doesn’t grasp what the Senate is, or what it intended to do. I shouldn’t have to point out to most grade schoolers that we do have statewide respresentation based on population, however the Senate isn’t it.
If you want to change our entire governmental system to some kind of a congress based on nationwide popular vote, then please just say so. However, the people of states like Montana and North Dakota et. al like the idea of a senate with fixed representation. If you’d really like to abolish all the states and make us all one mish-mash of people, that’s fine, but please just say so. If you want us to abolish the governments of all the countries in the world, that’s a fine idea too, let’s just all hold hands, drink a Coke and sing along.
As far as the filibuster itself, I’ve always thought it a rather stupid ancient rule, no matter which sides uses it. I’d rather modernize and simplify a lot of the archaic and expensive things the federal government does, like the endless committee structure, etc.
But of course, a lot of people argue that our three-legged stool of federal government was inherently designed to be inefficient and incapable of getting too much accomplished. Those early people that believed heavily in the strong system of state’s rights and the weak concept of our federal power would be spinning in their graves today.
If they weren’t all dust of course.
I think the point that Peregrin’s making is pretty clear:
The Senate Republicans argue for the judicial filibuster by saying that having to reach a 60-40 vote standard corrupts the democratic standard of a 50-50 vote majority.
However, let’s keep in mind that the Senate Republicans, with the Senate being what it is and their support coming from where it does (typically small states), was not voted in by a popular majority.
Simple, yes?
No, the subjects are far more complex than that.
His statement: “Traditional mechanisms like the right to filibuster were designed to mitigate the undue influence of a small number of inhabitants of sparsely populated states, like Wyoming and Alaska.”
effectively ignores the other portion of our elected legislature, which does take into account states based on their populations.
That’s why our government is not solely a Senate alone.
His argument did not mention why the filibuster should be removed, that’s your point, not his. Keeping in mind what the Senate is constituted of has no relevance here.
That’s like stating that I drove my car off a bridge, and instead of flying, it sank straight down. Now, it might be an excellent idea to make a flying car, but that’s not what my car was designed to do. The Senate was designed to keep the voice of smaller states from being drowned out by population. Again, if you want to eliminate states, that’s a different issue. But if you choose to live in a sparsely populated STATE, then our current systems allows your voice to have some clout, in the means of your two senators, whether that state is red or blue.
This is what Barbara Boxer thought about filibustering in 1995:
“”It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor,” said Boxer, who supported a move in 1995 to ease the filibuster rule. ”
And then she supported filibusters for 10 1st term Bush appointees.
And then there’s Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. In the mid 1990s, he supported changing the filibuster rules, saying they were “a relic of the ancient past”.
I agree with both on them on that point, at least until the political winds have carried them into different positions so that they ended up changing their minds on this. Maybe if the Senate swings Democratic in the next election, I’ll get to hear her old opinion again. We’ll wait and see.
Mondopercipient, you’re more like a unipercipient.
Peregrin Wood’s point is absolutely clear. You’re purposefully muddying.
The point is that if a nationwide vote elected our Senate members – through something like the porportional rules of a parliamentary system, we’d have a Democratic majority in the Senate. They don’t, and therefore the US Senate does not represent the true balance of political values in the nation as a whole.
The U.S. government was designed to have an intricate system of checks and balances, and the traditional power to filibuster is one of those checks on the abuse of power. Bill Frist and his Republican buddies are trying to take away yet one more American tradition that prevents abuse.
It’s not wrong just because the Republicans are trying to do it. It’s just plain wrong, because it’s anti-democratic. I hate the idea that a few nuts in small states can have such power without restraints like the filibuster rule.
One by one, the guardrails that protect democracy and liberty are being dismantled by the Republicans. Doesn’t that make you suspicious, mondo?
Iris,
You seem to enjoy getting insulting and personal, and perhaps that’s just your way. I don’t think I said anything to you, but I’m happy to reply to your post.
I don’t disagree with a system of checks and balances. In fact, I mentioned that having a system that includes the Senate is a way to shift some balance of power to smaller states, regardless of their population. If you’re strickly for a porportional system, then I guess you don’t favor as much tolerance for the views of people living in smaller-population states. That’s your right.
If you think the filibuster is one of the best ways to shift power away from supporting the positions of those living in smaller states and again more towards a pure porportional system, that’s fine for you to hold that opinion.
I guess you weren’t as suspicious back when Barbara Boxer was trying to change the filibuster rule, or were you?
Is it an automatic assumption that people who live in small pop. states are by nature “nuts”, or worse yet, a conservative? What about Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire?
I hold the opinion that there are better ways to run government. I don’t think eliminating or changing the filibustering rule in a vacuum by itself is necessarily the way to do that, but I do think positive change is possible. Perhaps you enjoy things staying static. Sounds like the definition of a conservative, but I don’t want to insult you.
Mondopercipient,
I think you have a point when you talk about the hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about the filibuster. They’d like you to believe it’s about the principle of the protection of minority rights in the Senate, but really, they’re interested in the protection of Democratic Party rights in the Senate. The Democratic Party is the minority right now, and so minority rights are what they want to protect.
I think that’s quite plausible.
On Iris, hey: you use a handle like “mondopercipient,” you’d better be ready to get some ribbing.
Thanks for your agreement on that point.
I still think it’s rather pointless to think of the Senate in terms of “…if it was directly proportional to blah blah…” It’s not, and there’s a reason why it was done that way.
Iris doesn’t bother me. His/her/it’s comments don’t look far enough back into history to have context. You could take her statements back in history a few years, replace Frist with Boxer, and Republicans with Democrats, and nothing would be different.
And really, my name isn’t any dumber than some of the other ones I’ve seen here….
No, but it is a hell of a lot more self-regarding. Why not just name yourself “suuupergenius” and go all the way?
Like I said, I agree with you that some Democrats who are saying their dudgeon is all about the sanctity of this procedure are faking their earnestness.
But I agree with Iris to the extent that I think you’re missing the central point of the post (minipercipient, you might say) that there’s a mismatch between Republicans’ rhetoric of majoritarianism and the reality of their minoritarianist rule in the Senate. You’re being pretty literal to blind yourself to all other possibilities than what currently is. By imagining the alternative possibilities to the current state of things, we’re sometimes better able to understand patterns of behavior within the current state.
The House has nothing to do with nominations. Only the Senate and the President are involved. Bush and the Senate GOP represent MORE people than the Democrats do, not less. See her for details http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=137
Andrew:
“Bush and the Senate GOP represent MORE people than the Democrats do, not less. See her for details http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=137
Comment by Andrew — 5/4/2005 @ 11:54 pm ”
Interesting point if you think the author Wood’s point was interesting also. So we could reword his headline to read:
“Democrats have minority popular position in Judicial Nominations”
Simple, yes?
Still somewhat pointless? Indeed.
And as for mr./ms. Matthew:
“…the judicial filibuster…corrupts the democratic standard of a 50-50 vote majority…. However, let’s keep in mind that the Senate Republicans, with the Senate being what it is and their support coming from where it does (typically small states), was not voted in by a popular majority.”
I didn’t bother to doublecheck the figures in Andrew’s post, but in reference the the judical nomination/confirmation process, it looks like the Republicans DO have a popular majority. False?
BTW, I did state in my original post that one was free to discuss changes in the structure of our government. If all you’re referring to is a shift of democrat/republican power in the next cycle, then that’s just a temporary change. I was really talking about a larger more permananent change. If a revamp of our whole government really carried forward the “filibuster” concept, I’d be surprised (and somewhat disillusioned).
What’s the end game? Why the world doesn’t need countries or governments of any kind. We should all be enlightened enough to live communally in a Utopian-type society. Obviously we’re not there yet. Does this mean I’m implying that incremental change is not good? Nope. Iris’ post seems to imply that no incremental changes are inherently good for the system, and we should leave things completely the way they are. That’s the opposite end of the spectrum of change.
Andrew and “Mondo”,
Do you think we are so stupid as to not check the link? The link confirms what we have said. The statement you are referring to is about the presidential election, not the Senate election.
Either you two are not aware of this, and have poor reading skills, or you are aware of this already, and are guilty of deception.
Which is it?
Neither, Mr. Defensive.
No, I don’t believe you are stupid at all in that regard.
Personally, I think you’re just narrowing your focus so you can duck accepting the truth.
The point Andrew made is extremely clear. I’ll put into a very simple summary:
1. The process today for becoming a judge has two steps, a nomination by the executive branch, and a confirmation by the Senate.
You can’t get a judge without both branches.
2. If you add the popular votes up that have elected both of those branches, it totals more for republicans than democrats.
I didn’t make the original author’s point about popular votes and the senate. I still think it’s pointless to discuss the current branch of the Senate in those terms, since THAT IS NOT WHY THE SENATE IS.
But he thinks it’s relevant. OK, but the Senate is only the second half of the political process for judicial appointees. If you’re going to bring up a flawed concept, then be prepared to accept the same useless concept in its entirety.
I don’t think summing the popular votes for either branch is really relevant, since that is not how our election system and branches of government are set up, like it or not. I said earlier that I’m personnally in favor of changing the entire system. However, today it is what it is.
I think perhaps if you’re worried about reading skills, then I politely suggest you re-read my post, where I most clearly stated,
“…but in reference the the judical nomination/confirmation process,…” ( the first ‘the’ should have read ‘to’)
While I don’t this P. Wood specifically referred to the judicial process, J. Matthew did in post #2. Therefore, it’s pretty clear that in the terms of the judicial nomination and confirmation process, as I said, the popular majority vote tallies in favor of the republicans. If you don’t get it, then don’t try to bring the issue of “popular” vote into the Senate and the judicial appointment process, where it doesn’t belong anyway.
The title of the main post here is
“Democrats Have Popular Vote Majority in Senate.”
I take that to be a claim that the Democrats have a popular vote majority in the Senate.
The Presidency has nothing to do with that.
You’re fiddling.
You used “… argue for the judicial filibuster…”
There would not be a need for a judicial filibuster if they weren’t opposing a Presidential judicial nomination.
You brought the judicial process into the discussion, not me.
And if you’re talking about a judicial filibuster, then I guess you’re talking about the judicial process, which includes both the President and the Senate. And in that sense, as I stated, of the judicial process, the majority is simply not there. Not that anyone but you probably gives a rat’s ass about the concept of popular majority when referring to the Senate, which is just plain dumb anyway.
You’re weaseling.