on the filibuster
 

was perusing slate this evening....came upon this article, that i thought would do well to be linked here, considering all the recent arguing about whether it should remain as a tool. i hope those so vehemently against the tactic read the article.

http://www.slate.com/id/2244060/

I am certainly sympathetic to arguments such as:

"When Democrats have filibustered Republicans in recent years, they have very often represented more Americans than the Republican majority; the same is almost never true in reverse."

But, on the whole, I still wish the filibuster would be eliminated completely. Arguing that the undemocratic filibuster is a good thing because it can sometimes act to correct the undemocratic nature of the Senate strikes me as something of a strained argument.

I really like the proposals for a decreasing amount of votes necessary for cloture over time. That means fillibuster can occur, but limits the neverending obstructionism.

I thought the article good, but the argument flawed. The Senate isn't supposed to represent majority population rule. Two votes per state, regardless of population.

53.4% of voters wanted Obama. All along, he said he was going to have this type of health care plan. The majority of voters backed a man who was for this. Fact is that the Filibuster crap has allowed 36% of the population's Senators to fk this man. You would think the clarity on how pathetic this is would be crystal clear, but no. Americans just can't accept the fact this is a piece of crap rule in a biased pool. I always told you it was about this much (64-65%) that you are making this man get. I finally did the adding up, and they're beating him with 36% of the population's senators. I am not making this up. You're asking him to get the senators representing a full 65% of the population. He couldn't do it. You wonder why there is gridlock? Right here, baby. This is a cancer. It's allowed the media, P.T.A. Sarah, and pompous people everywhere to pick apart a man who got 64% of the population's senators behind him. I can't tell ya just how stupid Americans are to make a President bow to 36% of the population. It's absurd. Keep putting up apologists writing articles to lead Americans astray. They deserve gridlock. They don't deserve a leader. They've got exactly what their rule book allows a leader to get done (nothing.) They get mad, but they won't give their leader the power to do stuff (only responsibility for the blame.) People can keep blaming politicians all they want, but if they don't change the basic design, they'll only get more gridlock. I promise you that.

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike. The fact we don't seem to think it's wrong just shows how elitist we are as a society. That's a dog-waste design. It's no wonder it's failing. You get what you deserve for putting up with it. It's wrong. I don't care how much they try to brainwash you people into buying into it. It's wrong. It's never gunna be moral to give Americans in certain parts of America more say than other Americans. It's right in front of you. It's dead wrong. Simply an immoral design, because you own it, you're gunna overlook it. We have an immoral design, and we wonder why it's not working. When somethings not fair, then people don't respect it, and it won't work. It's sooooooo much more just to have 36% stop this guy. Founding Fathers just so fkn brilliant, huh.

I actually like gridlock because I don't like either party. I think the Republicans are probably the lesser of two evils but it's a close call.

I wouldn't want either party to be able to do whatever they want to do. Even if the Republicans had a simple majority, I wouldn't want them to be able to pass whatever legislation they like. I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing.

Needing 60 votes to get anything done is a good thing. It forces compromise. I hope that neither party ever has 60 seats in the Senate. I wouldn't want either party to have full control.

Totally agree with this post.

Naturally if you knew of or understood history you would have some sense of why the system was designed as it is. Seemingly in your perfect world we would just have an opinion poll that dictated our laws. Maybe the political version of Sportsnation? Because that show is working out so well...

:tro: :tro:

I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.

Congress is where Americans are represented by their numbers. The Senate represents "the States", not those states' populations.

That said, I agree with all you said about the Dems being pussies. The only one who has remotely stood up lately is the President, and the Dems are not even following his lead. The Dems have the mandate, and they are blowing it.

Congress is both the House and the Senate. The House is the one based on population, and the Senate based upon equal shares of U.S. sovreignty -- which reduces to 2 votes per state.

The Dems do not have a mandate. They were the "not Bush" party when Bush was no longer running, and the emotional population put them in the majority. In two years time, most of the people who voted Democratic have realized that the Dem's agenda sucks, at least for the working people who pay the tax dollars that Congress spends. They will rightfully and soundly be pounded at the polls in November.

Well, actually, yes, they do indeed have the electoral mandate. In the Executive Branch, in the Congress [House of Reps to make Joey happy], in the Senate.

I just posted today's Rasmussen poll over in your other thread (your poll thread) that shows the Dems - for today at least - clearly in the lead.

Except the Dems clearly dont lead the polls when the Tea partyers and GOP are added together. Since Palin "heads" the tea Partiers and you, Bob and the Today show say shes the face of the GOP I want to hear the reasoning on how the Dems clearly are in the lead.

From who? Obama?

The Dems are simply following the lead of their constituents, you know the people they represent. Something to do with JOBS lol

Unlike you, few treat Obama as their Messiah and thank the Lord for that. As I've said before I hope this Pres continues to do what he wants and not what the citizens want. I really just can't wait to see what magnificence he shows in the private sector.

From what I see the Tea Partiers and the GOP are not going to vote together (witness what has happened already in elections where there are candidates from both Baggers and GOP running - NY Congress, the Dem won, hello!); that the part of the GOP that supports Baggers is moving away from Baggers and back to the GOP; and that Independents are moving away from the GOP and Baggers.

From who? Obama?[/quote]

Naw, the obvious electoral majority the Dems hold: the Presidency, and Congress.

In my view, it's generally good when pols follow what their constituents elected them to do. In fact, even the GOP constituents want jobs, no?

You and reality seem to have a strange disconnect. I've never treated Obama like a Messiah, and I've certainly written here plenty of what I don't like about him.

:zz: The citizens "want" exactly what he is doing. He's never had more support.

Tax cuts for "the private sector" (business) should make you pretty happy, I'd think.

:zz: The citizens "want" exactly what he is doing. He's never had more support.

Tax cuts for "the private sector" (business) should make you pretty happy, I'd think.[/quote]

In spite of the polls. You are the dining room table Barney Frank was talking about arguing with. :zz: Once again a poll titled "Obama Hits Lowest Approval Mark" dated TODAY!!!!

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal..._hits_lowe.php

Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).

me too, I feel great when there's gridlock.

It's when they're getting things done that I really get concerned.

like we sometimes say about a horse, "they've done enough"

In spite of the polls. You are the dining room table Barney Frank was talking about arguing with. :zz: Once again a poll titled "Obama Hits Lowest Approval Mark" dated TODAY!!!!

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal..._hits_lowe.php[/quote]

www.rasmussenreports.com

www.rasmussenreports.com[/quote]

you should get down and pray the Tea Party doesn't go away!

from your source

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssional_ballot


and wish he would listen to this poll but fat chance, again from your source.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...reduce_deficit

Dell, you're acting like a dining room table. You're confusing apples with oranges.

WTF are you talking about. You said and I quote " The citizens "want" exactly what he is doing. He's never had more support." in reference to Obama. You post a link to rasmussen about some teabagger poll and completely ignore the big picture like (again citing your polling source)

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.

Just 19% now say they’re not very or not at all angry at the government’s policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September. That 19% includes only eight percent (8%) who say they’re not angry at all and 11% who are not very angry.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...rrent_policies

75% LMAO yea that's some mandate he's following thru on but hope his ignorance to polls and voters continues. :D

Happened because idiots got their way in a 5-4 vote. They had the correct way (Virginia Plan) right in front of them, and blew it. They decided to take away the power of the typical voter in Virginia, and give it to the typical voter in Rhode Island. Wrong then, and wrong now. It's still immoral. Americans do immoral things, and rationalize them. Then, the biggest difference in population was 10x. Now it's 70x, but you cling to this as if they'd be for it today (wrong.) Anyone with a fair brain can see the problem, but there really aren't that many fair brains. We had an election. The President got 53.4% of American voters ballots. I have no problem with a check on the majority, but not a 65% requirement. The wreck called the U.S. Senate is badly biased towards certain elite citizens who happen to be in smaller population states, but a certain party is forcing filibuster for almost everything. This is not typical. It's never been used this much, but seems the election of a Negro President has resulted in the American people not giving a damn that it's been used over 100 times (absurd.) Combine a biased pool with a 60% requirement has resulted in requiring a President to get 65% of the American Population's Senators to pass anything. Now, as you can see on the posts above, people want their cake n' eat it too. They like gridlock that this 60% of a trick pool has resulted in, but they also want to complain that the leader isn't doing anything to solve problems (as I said, Americans do immoral things, n' rationalize them.) The filibuster combined with the biased Senate pool is a doubling of the check on the power of the majority.

Here is the result of the immoral way of handing out senate seats. A person from:

California is 497% less represented than they should be....Immoral

Texas is 290% less represented than they should be....Immoral

New York is 215% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Florida is 198% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Illinois is 110% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Penn is 103% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ohio is 87.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mich is 64.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Georgia is 56% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NC is 54% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NJ is 42% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Virginia is 26% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Wash is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mass is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

AZ is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ind. is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Tenn. is 0.5% less represented than they should be.

Missouri gets 4.16% Overrepresented

Maryland 8.7% Overrepresented

Wiscon. gets 9.3% Overrepresented

MINN 18%Overrepresented

COL 26% Overrepresented

ALA 32% Overrepresented

SC 39% Overrepresented

LOU 43% Overrepresented

KENTUCKY 44% Overrepresented (you can see why Cannon's for this cheating.)

Oregon 63% Overrepresented

O.K. 69% Overrepresented

Conn 74% Overrepresented

IOWA 104% Overrepresented

MISS 111% Overrepresented

ARK 115% ...Overrepresented
That's right, Zig, you get 115% more say than you should (just because you're in a certain favored location in America.) Oh, how easy it is to rationalize evil when it works in your favor.

Kansas 120% Overrepresented


Utah 130% Overrepresented


Nev 138% Overrepresented


NM 212.5% Overrepresented

WV 239% Overrepresented

NEB 245% Overrepresented

ID 308% Overrepresented

ME 365% Overrepresented

NH 365% Overrepresented

HAWAII 376% Overrepresented

R.I. 471% Overrepresented

MONTANA 545% Overrepresented

DEL 614% Overrepresented

SD 669% Overrepresented

AK 809% Overrepresented

ND 852% Overrepresented

VER 900% Overrepresented

WYO 1076% Overrepresented

544 thousand people in Wyoming get a total of 2 senators.

36.96 million people in California get a total of 2 senators.

That's a 70x difference in representation for the citizens involved.

Only Americans can couch up some lame rationalization for this elitism. Don't live in a certain unfavored area. You'll get screwed. Giving citizens varying amounts of representation is wrong, and there is no rationalization that can make it right.

Too much power? You've forced the guy to get 65% of the population's Senators to get anything passed. The advantages given your party with these cute rationalizations is obscene. That's what allows you to lie about what Americans want, or don't want. Just fess up to it (instead of misleading everyone into thinking it's a fair system.) He got elected with 53.4% of the voters ballots. He didn't get 65% of the populations support, but you're making him get 65% of the population's senators. Good trick. Can't do it. Must have failed ideas. Couldn't be your lil tricks n' advantages coming into play. That 41 Senators keeping filibusters going only represent 36% of our population. You should all remember that before you keep talking about how "the public" is for, or against him. This is mainly a parlor trick combining two bad parts of a fkd up design. You don't trick me one bit. The American People are with him, but the senate unfairly represents the American People. Then you go out n' act like the senate is the American people. It isn't. It's represents the views of a few elite Americans. Everyone admits it favors some Americans over others. So, don't act like all Americans decided to turn the guy down. Only 41% of a biased pool (hillbillies get preferential treatment) were required to be against him. Not "The American People." There's a 11.95% group of Americans getting only a 2% say in that senate. So, don't tell me it's a fair thing going on. It's not America. It's America's embarrassment. Amazing how you're against special preferences until it comes to something that favors you. Then it's all good.

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

I don't think that a person needs to "go back to civics class" just because they disagree with the way Senate seats are apportioned. I certainly understand why the Senate was constructed the way it was - much as I understand why the electoral college was created - but that doesn't mean I can't wish that these things could be changed now.
After all, there is also a reason that state legislatures (rather than voters) were the ones who elected U.S. Senators for decades in this country. Eventually people made the case that this system was undemocratic and should therefore be changed (which it obviously was). Something tells me that if DT had been around at that time, and someone came on here and argued that voters rather than state legislatures should elect U.S. senators.....they would have been told that they must just not understand why the always brilliant authors of the Constitution set up the system the way they did, and if they wanted to make that change they might as well decide everything by having an opinion poll.

Gee whiz, New Jersey is under represented? Probably could correct that number if they let some of our politicians out of jail.:p

the reason i said to go back to class was so he could understand why everything is the way it is, not because i disagree with him or his opinion.

His opinion that the senate is "immoral" based on 2 seats per state makes no sense unless there is a definition of immoral that has some hidden meaning. The idea that the Senate being voted on by legislatures rather than individual voters being changed could be compared to changing Senate representation along population numbers is like comparing apples to oranges. One just changes who votes, the other completely changes the system of govt and creates a second House of Reps. It makes no sense.

I agree that scuds employs a fairly loose definition of "immoral" in his analysis of the Senate. However, saying that making changes to a state's representation in the Senate would "create a second House of Reps" is completely and obviously false. Senators serve 6 year terms and are elected by the voters throughout the whole state rather than just a congressional district. If the apportionment was changed - but those aspects of the Senate remain unchanged - the two houses would still be fairly different.

Also, if people wanted to keep the Senate significantly smaller than the House, that could probably be done too (obviously I mean hypothetically speaking, since none of this will ever happen). Let's say they changed the Senate so that the ten largest states received 4 senators. The next fifteen largest received 3 senators. The next fifteen largest received 2 senators. And the ten smallest states only got one. That would only increase the senate to a total of 125 members, and while it would not completely erase the disparity in representation that currently exists in the senate, it would rectify it considerably.

There really is nothing unusual about a Dem. winning a House seat in N.Y. is there? In that particular case the Republican was far more liberal than the Dem. and had to bow out. The "tea bagger" was a relative unknown who almost won. If I remember right the Repub stayed on the ballot. I may be wrong about the last one.

The unusualness is that that seat has always been Republican for like 40 years.

The Republican candidate bowed out when the Tea Party candidate appeared (who I think appeared on the ballot as an "independent", but not sure), and put support behind the Democrat, who then won.

The Tea Party (there are various Bagger groups, and a bit of infighting, so that kind of unfairly paints them all with the same name, there is not just one group of "Tea Party" people, there are several) - the TP intends to put up candidates against Republicans in the primaries this fall. We'll see how it works out.

What matters is the least widest part of the pipe (Senate.) I'm ignoring it (H.R.,) because it is not the excuse (for the immoral Senate Design) that you think it is. That's a totally fair situation (H OF R.) Why would anyone have a problem with that legislative body? God forbid we all get the same representation for our taxation. Wow. It doesn't somehow balance out the evil done to some citizens in the Senate. Why should I act like it does? Brainwashing? Didn't take. Just because I learned all this stuff in Civics Class, doesn't mean I think it's a fair way to do it. I think that's where we disagree. You think just because you get some weird immoral rationalization in Civics Class, then you need to buy into it. Civics Class gives you the rationalization for the bad design. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CORRECT. They counted slaves as 3/5 citizens. Do you buy into that just because you read it in Civics Class? I ignored the House of Rep, because it is not the balance weight you people state it to be. Someone in a large state is simply equally represented in that body. That, in no way, is a balance to giving some Americans more say in the Senate than other Americans. There is no balance here. That is simply flawed thinking that people follow like sheep. They aren't the lil beautiful oil n' vinegar balancing combo that you're brainwashed into thinking it is.

IMMORAL= not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

O.K., It is immoral to give people in Ca., NY, Fl, Tex so little representation in the Senate. In the Senate Health Care debate, each American in California was represented 1/70th the amount of an American in Wyoming. You can only lamely justify it (at all) on bills where money is spent on projects in a way that is non-uniform (for instance what state are we going to put a military base in.) On bills such as Medicare, Health Care etc. it's simply an excuse to give an advantage to small states that tend to often have Conservative Rural Populations. Health Care is not the same as military base closings etc. You simply can not make a legit moral argument why someone in a small state should have more say-so in the health care debate. They will all be immoral arguments. Go ahead. Start. I'll show you. This is not some minor issue. This unfair advantage enabled all this trouble to happen with health care. If you simply give Americans in California, New York, Texas, n' Florida their fair representation, then you wouldn't have this mess. Giving people in small states this unfair advantage (in a bill that is so uniform in it's effect on states) can't be justified. It can only be rationalized with flawed immoral arguments. That's why he can't get it through. The people that elected him aren't represented fairly. The people that voted against him are unfairly overrepresented. It's not about the bill. It's about the unfair underrepresentation of people in California, Florida, New York etc. The Democratic Senators in small states like Louisiana, Arkansas, and Nebraska are bowing to the Conservative voters in their states. These voters are the ones who had the say, and the price was paid by Americans in New York, California, and Florida (a classic case of taxation without equal representation.) Americans in certain states, that are poorly represented in the Senate, should have to pay tax only at a rate that is representative of their influence on these issues. Why tax Americans the same rate when you aren't giving them equal representation when making decisions on these bills? Our influence is 450% less than fair, and you want to tax us like any other American. It's bullshit. Tax us the same as you, and then have your views represented from 10-70 times more than ours? Wow. ZIG, YOU HAD 12.8 TIMES MORE INFLUENCE ON THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL THAN ME. If it's gunna effect most the people in all the states the same way, then why do you need that special privilege?

you are aware, aren't you, that both senators from arkansas voted for obamas health care bill? you're ranting about percentages without paying attention to how those senators voted.
the federal govt is made up of 50 individual states. that's why there are two senators from each, regardless of population. not sure why you refuse to pay attention to that.
bills begin in the house-where it's based on population. the house is who overrides vetoes. you're only paying attention to half of congress, while ignoring the realities of how the legislative body is made up, and why. sorry you don't like it. not my problem.

Here's the scoop Riot. Hoffman ran as a Conservative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/ny...rict.html?_r=1
The Repub. got 6% of the vote after she bowed out. There is no such Party as the "Tea Party" yet. Just a lot of people (like myself) who feel both parties are running this country into the ground with endless spending with no way to pay for it except more spending. Obama says when you can't pay the mortgage you shouldn't blow a bunch of money in Vegas, but that is exactly what he himself is doing. Yet another case of O saying one thing then doing the opposite

Just hope Sarah Palin stops endorsing candidates, so far seems the kiss of death.

Think of it this way......you could rent out that space your brain left.