Democrats Flirt with Destroying Another Senate Guardrail

[djmilf]

Getting back on topic...

The current Senate rules allowing for filibuster only require that one senator raise an objection to closing the debate. That senator doesn't have to hold the floor, such as Senator Jefferson Smith did in 1939 (link). Our modern day senator's objection holds unless 60 senators vote for cloture, ending the debate. As such, it takes only 41 senators representing roughly 21 states to sustain a filibuster.

Bear in mind that the smaller states all tend to have Republican senators and that the larger states all tend to have Democratic senators. You can find exceptions (Texas and Florida for Republicans, Vermont and Delaware for Democrats), but the bottom line is that a Republican Senate filibuster can be maintained by the 21 smallest Republican-represented states that hold only 63 million people, while a Democratic filibuster is maintained by 21 smallest Democratic-represented states that hold 126 million people.

I get that the Senate is supposed to provide smaller states a larger voice at the federal level, but doesn't the current method of filibuster go to far? And isn't it obvious that the Republican states derive a much larger benefit than the Democratic states?

Is there a middle ground here? One that's between maintaining the effective veto power of senators representing only 20% of the population and eliminating all protections for those smaller states?

[bu2]

Originally Posted by djmilf

Getting back on topic...

The current Senate rules allowing for filibuster only require that one senator raise an objection to closing the debate. That senator doesn't have to hold the floor, such as Senator Jefferson Smith did in 1939 (link). Our modern day senator's objection holds unless 60 senators vote for cloture, ending the debate. As such, it takes only 41 senators representing roughly 21 states to sustain a filibuster.

Bear in mind that the smaller states all tend to have Republican senators and that the larger states all tend to have Democratic senators. You can find exceptions (Texas and Florida for Republicans, Vermont and Delaware for Democrats), but the bottom line is that a Republican Senate filibuster can be maintained by the 21 smallest Republican-represented states that hold only 63 million people, while a Democratic filibuster is maintained by 21 smallest Democratic-represented states that hold 126 million people.

I get that the Senate is supposed to provide smaller states a larger voice at the federal level, but doesn't the current method of filibuster go to far? And isn't it obvious that the Republican states derive a much larger benefit than the Democratic states?

Is there a middle ground here? One that's between maintaining the effective veto power of senators representing only 20% of the population and eliminating all protections for those smaller states?

Good first paragraph.

But you don't understand the concept of the Senate.

[djmilf]

Originally Posted by bu2

Good first paragraph.

But you don't understand the concept of the Senate.

Enlighten me.

[skeddy]

never happen, Sinema told McConnell she'll change parties if that were done and Dems would lose it all. Just more clickbait for those with an IQ below 80.

[stone26]

Originally Posted by ttboy

Where is the link?

The Senate was able to pass the bill with only 51 votes, without the need to defeat a filibuster, under the budget reconciliation process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cu...bs_Act_of_2017

There you go!

[Somnifor]

The filibuster means that nothing can pass unless it has a 60/40 majority or qualifies for reconciliation. That isn't in the constitution. It is a historical accident that the filibuster was created. Aaron Burr reorganized some of the Senate rules in the early 19th century in an attempt to streamline procedure and accidentally created the situation that allowed the filibuster. It wasn't until the 1840s that senators realized they could do this.

There is nothing magically wonderful about the filibuster. Almost no other legislative bodies have it. It is just a quirk of history, not a carefully considered part of our system. If it was the original intention that everything needed a super majority in the Senate to pass it would have been written into the constitution. In our hyper partisan era the filibuster just means that it is almost impossible to pass meaningful legislation. The result is that our system is biased towards those already benefiting from the status quo and also means that our government has trouble dealing with new challenges. This wouldn't be an issue if everything was fine in America but it is clear that our institutions are slowly rotting from the inside out and are in dire need of reform that is nearly impossible because of the inertial forces preventing it.

Checks and balances are important, but taken to an extreme they mean that nobody can govern, even after winning an election.