Tweet
The New York Times editorial board has acknowledged that there is clearly a serious problem with the rules currently governing the Senate and has called for modest reform. Yet, despite calling for reform, the New York Times, for some reason, has a problem with the democratic principle of majority rule that governs almost every other free and open democracy. From the New York Times:
A filibuster — the catchall term for delaying or blocking a majority vote on a bill by lengthy debate or other procedures — remains a valuable tool for ensuring that a minority of senators cannot be steamrollered into silence. No one is talking about ending the practice.
This is frankly a ridiculous sentiment. Allowing the duly elected majority to pass the legislation it was elected to enact is a foundational principle of democracy. That is the way it works in our House of Representatives, the UK House of Commons, the Parliament of Norway and almost every other democracy’s national legislative chamber. Eliminating the filibuster would simply have the Senate function like almost every other democratic legislative chamber in our country and around the world.
I fail to see how having a bill winning the support of a majority of members elected to the House, then having the same bill win only a majority votes from the elected members of the Senate, then having it not vetoed by the President and finally having it upheld as constitutional by the courts can be seen by anyone as a legislative steamroller.
It is amazing that ending the filibuster is somehow too radical for the New York Times. All ending the filibuster would do is simply return the Senate to the majority-rule chamber the founders clearly intended when they drafted the Constitution. The filibuster wasn’t even allowed by the original Senate rules and only developed later, accidentally, due to a failure to adopt a rule allowing for a motion to end debate.
43 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
oh, the nyt don’t have nothin to worry about. the majority party, whichever it is, is on their side, too.
This is at the heart of every filibuster argument, in my mind. Simple majority equals democracy.
They weren’t elected to talk. They were elected to vote, based on the wants of the majority of their constituents, on legislation. The idea of representative democracy is completely lost on these people. All the “I have to vote my conscience” shit we’ve heard over the last 10 years. They think it’s personal. They’ve forgotten that congress is comprised of public servants.
The 112th is going to be one wild-ass ride.
History should win out in the hearts and minds of our congresscritters, and they should get rid of this gun they wield at the American people. The filibuster has shaped so much of our history over the past 10 years, and it isn’t even supposed to exist. It was a GD oversight. An accident.
/endrant
Funny. The NY Times calls for rules change in congress.
They evidently feel they are so much more important than citizens.
Oh, I forgot. They are citizens now. Which reminds me, I gotta get my household set up like a business. We can’t have unfair tax laws in the US. I need my corporate style loopholes too.
I think a large-scale movement of people incorporating their households would send a message to the USG. That would be pretty damn fun.
Yep. We have to! It is our only way of fairness and justice.
I am sure the Democrats will time this maneuver so that the filibuster is eliminated the moment the Republicans take over the Senate. Even if the filibuster is eliminated, however, the Senate has little to do with democracy. South Dakota has as many Senators as California. It is kind of crazy and goes a long way toward enshrining minority rights, even if there were no filibuster.
Why would the New York Times want to be a party to restoring majority rule in this country? Or in restoring our republic? What’s in it for them? The rich folks love the way the country is being run—in their favor—and see no need to change things. Peace
The Senate is not a democratic body. Evaluating Senate process using democratic criteria leads to faulty results. For instance, it is possible that 51 Senators can pass legislation while representing only 38% of Americans, which is a minority.
41 Senators representing a large majority, 60% of Americans, can currently filibuster legislation.
The filibuster needs fixing but reform must go down in a way that still prohibits a tightly unified right wing southern core representing a tax taking minority of Americans from ramming their will down the rest of the country that generates the economic activity that pays for the bulk of government function. The red welfare states don’t want to work hard, want a free lunch, and will stop at nothing to force us to subsidize their laziness.
This is another case of the Democrats unifying around non reform, parroting a message that benefits the Republicans more so than Americans.
-marc
“Allowing the duly elected majority to pass the legislation it was elected to enact…”
There is something alarming about this statement. One thing that comes to mind immediately is the implication that any majority was ever elected to pass specific legislation. Where do we have any such contract? Secondly, it implies that any specifically constituted majority of one party agrees on anything. While that may be true of a Republican majority which seems to hold to a consensus that the majority of Americans exist only to serve the wealthy as they want to be served, no such consensus seems to exist within the Democratic majority, a significant number of whom seem to agree with Republicans.
A majority of one party in a legislative body does not imply specific legislation that should be enacted nor does it account for the insoluble conundrum created by your assertion when different parties hold a majority in either of our legislative bodies.
There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. George Wallace (spit) knew that and said it in public. They (the powers that be) tried to kill him to shut him up. Peace
What’s your point? Peace
theres nothing “strange” about the NYT’s fear of Democracy, the ruling class has never been fond of it.
:-) There is another point as well as some folks have noted, but not extrapolated to: a majority of the majority. The majority of one party in one of our legislative bodies is seldom monolithic. So, one is left by your assertion to accept that in the case of our Senate a 51 seat majority should be ruled by a majority of 26 within that group leaving us with the self-contradictory idea of rule by a majority of 26%.
My point is that these statements are at best nonsense:
“This is frankly a ridiculous sentiment. Allowing the duly elected majority to pass the legislation it was elected to enact is a foundational principle of democracy.”
we are talking about a procedure here, whereby the minority can block virtually any legistlation it wishes, far too easily, which is perverse and contrary to the foundational concept of Democracy. Its Not “minority rules”. If you are suggesting that you approve of an elite senate oligarchy, a star chamber to approve or disapprove laws based on god knows what input, then say so, otherwise dont make it more complicated than it is.
If majority rule were democratic we would be voting on the issues and not on the assholes who will lord it over us.
I was not supporting filibuster, especially as constituted. I was responding to the silly assertion that anyone can say specifically what legislation any majority was elected to pass.
Supposedly we do. We elect a candidate based on his presentation of the platform he is running on. We expect that when that candidate takes office he/she will follow through and ignite legislation that we feel are issues in which need to be addressed.
I know, it is not working. That is the problem.
The filibuster is just the “out clause” for the MOTU/PTB, who are represented by Senators (who do not, anymore, really represent the commoners). I doubt it will be eliminated.
The Senate, like the British House of Lords, is an anachronism (to be polite) that is well past its “sell by” date. In no way does the Senate represent “we the people” in almost any way, shape or form. The number of Senators per population base is way skewed, for starters. But I fully have no expectation of anything to change with the Senate at all.
As initially stated, the zillionaires who took over our nation are fully satisfied with the servicing & fluffing they get from the US Senate, and that’s all that matters anymore to the monied elite.
Bingo!!
I agree. I support full Democratic rule. That meas EVERYBODY votes directly.Moreover I have no faith in the American electoral system. However that may be, the filibuster as is, is a massively elitist and anti- democratic procedure, which any suppotter of Democracy should be happy to see weakened, even if doing so falls short of ushering in a fully Democratic society.
Our Congress, both houses, support the business community above all else. In order for us to be treated fairly, now that the Supreme court deemed that corporations are persons and should be represented and have voice in government, then we as individuals must incorporate ourselves. Otherwise, we are no longer represented in government and have an unfair taxation put upon us.
And I agree :-)
The Democrats sold Americans the trojan horse of Barack Obama, now they’re selling Mitch McConnell as führer after the 2012 elections.
The Senate BY DEFINITION is not a democratic body. It was meant to equalize the power of small and large states. One person, one vote need not apply.
Why political commentators refuse to acknowledge that the Senate and democracy are not compatible is beyond me.
The statements I took issue with were statements about majorities of elected people. As you noted we vote for a candidate at a time, one person. I’d also note that voting for a candidate in no way implies that if elected that candidate will do what I wanted him/her to do. In fact, as Obama has abundantly proved, the elected candidate may attempt little to none of what he/she promised while soliciting our votes.
We’re lucky to get close to 50% of registered voters voting in any given national election. A large percentage of those voters are ill informed, relying on corporate media outlets for their information. What kind of legislation do you think we’d end up with when the real majority of Americans don’t vote or have no clue what they’re voting on? Do we require all citizens register to vote and vote? How would we enforce that?
Jane has a fresh cross-post already in progress: Bye, Bye Miss American Pie: 2011
you know, i think you’ve got ahold of something here. i’ve been toying with all kinds of ideas for mass actions around the guff we are taking. massive snail mails, e-mails, nation-wide community soap boxes, and now! incorporating households!
Let’s do these things.
“All ending the filibuster would do is simply return the Senate to the majority-rule chamber the founders clearly intended when they drafted the Constitution.”
See, this is the problem with literalizing/decontextualizing the Constitution, which is something we criticize the right for all the time. Take a quick tour through the Federalist Papers (10 I think is the one you want to start with) and you’ll see that the founders were deeply concerned over preserving the dignity of political minorities.
Also note that the Senate has been gamed by the elite to add a bunch of states (beyond the original 13) that are glorified national parks with almost no people. Lets go back to the “constitution” and only have Senators for the original 13 states!
Why don’t they talk about it? Because the PTB don’t want to talk about how the US Government is the worst in industrial world and needs to be destroyed.
Due to destruction of our education systems and the corporate media, our people have the lowest IQ/Knowledge-to-money ratio in the world. But don’t worry, the ratio will improve as the population’s $$$ goes to 0.
I am opposed to Winner-takes-All votes on policy, on principle. The filibuster is not such a bad mechanism. Even the framers of the constitution realized that there are Rights of minorities that are beyond the power of Congress to violate. I agree with OnitGoes, the Senate should be abolished. I agree with BlueCrow, we need more direct voting on policy questions, I would go further and start carving out policy areas from Congress, and move them to public elections. Including the allocation of the federal budget, and decisions to wage wars. We need to devolve some of these critical powers away from NY-WashDC. They have failed, so badly, for so long. It’s time for major, constitutional change in this country. Those who avoid nonviolent change make violence inevitable.
Because nearly all “political commentators” are bought off shill/hacks working solely and only for the ruling elite. The facist media is owned almost solely by the corporations and the elites; the fourth estate is not permitted to do it’s job. It’s “job” now is solely to be a propoganda outlet stating only what the corporations and elite want it to say. Telling the truth is not part of the program anymore.
Indeed, this is very true. It’s why some of us here were *at first* having some hopes for the Tea Party. Unfortunately, the Kochs, in particular, rapidly astro-turfed them and turned the T-Party into a bunch of raving loons who bark at the moon about wedge issues like abortion and teh dreaded gheyz. Too bad; the initial beginnings (going back to RON Paul) of the present-day Tea Party was focused more on *real* issues such as what you mention.
Citizens *should be* aware of this turn of events, but mostly, they are sound asleep and clueless… esp the Tea Party, more’s the pity.
Even if incorporation could be a way to proceed, I have to ask myself: Are all corporations created equal? Does the small corporation that supplies GM with parts have the same weight in government that GM does? If not, then we as a corporate entity have little more power than the individual. Then there is the cost of incorporating and filing the necessary papers.
Good article Jon.
The REALLLY strange thing coming from folks ascared of getting rid of the filibuster is that they seem to forget that the Senate is but one half of but one third of our government. Our founders were pretty clever and no out of control Senate can pass anything on it’s own. All legislation must also pass the house, and either be signed by the President OR pass with 2/3 majority. AND, if that’s not enough, there’s the courts.
It’s laughable actually, that some think that suddenly the Senate is going to be some out of control entity the second the filibuster is gone. Bullshit. And if the voters elect a REPUBLICAN Senate AND a Republican House AND a Republican President, then they SHOULD be able to pass their mandates, just like when the voters elect a DEMOCRATIC Senate AND a Democratic House AND a Democratic President should be able to.
Plus it’s clearly the constitutional way. They framers listed various votes that required super-majorities, if there were other votes they deemed necessary to require super-majorities, they would’ve listed them as well.
The New York Times is just plain dumb.
The filibuster argument comes up every two years and the NYT knows this. It is their standard piece. Its like the same inane banter you hear every year on the Rose parade telecast or making New Year’s resolutions. This song has been played over a few times.
If past is any kind of prologue, than we can safely say that our gutless leaders(both D and R) will never attempt anything really radical or bold that may actually move towards a more effective government because that would just upset the apple cart too much.
The filibuster argument can be seen as the intermission music between acts in a kabuki or bunraku play.
I am against “Winner takes all”/”First Past the Post” representation drummed into our imbecile public as the “Only Form of Democracy(tm)”. But I am against super-majority requirements in a legislative body. Yes there can be extended debate to respect the minority, but the minority should not be able to block forever. “Minority Rights” has turned into a scam for elite control of the system.
I also think the “separation of powers” paradigm is total garbage. Mathematically you have RepBody1 AND (Un)RepBody2 AND President AND SupremeCourt(less so), and all have to agree to pass anything. This makes changing anything too hard and why the US is going down the toilet. It also helps to allow the elite to lock in garbage policies that makes them rich. Any body of AND expression can be obstinate, threaten to blow up the system and “play chicken” with the other branches. Luckily, the Crapstitution is saved from itself by the Democrats, who always “CAVE”, thus breaking the logical deadlock.
The Crapstitution also is ridiculusly too hard to change. I think the Constitition should be revisited/rewritten every 20 years or so.
With the Lying Obomination and DemoRats showing that they are just corrupt Kabuki artists, the only game in town for leftists is the long term. I thus really don’t care that nuking the Filibuster could be bad in the short term. Because if the system is made more changeable, then it will be easier to undo any damage the Republicans do.
Actually, for a lot of people this would be possible, using SubChapter S provisions. If any of your income does not come strictly from wages paid as an employee, you’ve got an opening. If you are self-employed, work on independent contractor status, etc., you should consider going Sub-S. The great thing with Sub-S is that you get to apportion part of your “revenues” as income and part as a corporate “pass-through”. You don’t pay taxes on the pass-through portion.
How you do the allocation has to be reasonable; the IRS is not going to buy it if you put 99% into the pass-through. However, half or 2/4 or even 3/4 can often be designated as pass-through, esp. if you can show that the taxable portion (on a stand-alone basis or when combined with other income) is reasonable for basic needs. So maybe the taxable portion plus your spouse’s income covers basic needs. The pass-through could be the money you use for your kid’s college tuition, family savings, accelerated payoff of your mortgage. In fact, in situations where a family mostly just treads water, the amount of taxes saved on the pass-through portion of income could be enough to boost your savings or enable you to pay college expenses that you normaly couldn’t afford.
Check with an accoutant, look for books or on-line resources about Sub-S corps, and look at filing your own paperwork and/or using something like LegalZoom.com.
You can add bukkaki to that list.
I may be wrong on this, so I’m asking in all sincerity, but didn’t the Dems use the filibuster in 2005 or 2006 to stop the Repubs (who were in the majority at the time) from privatizing Social Security?
These Democrats are setting us up for failure again. Alito was the tipping point at the Supreme Court that opened the floodgates to the libertarian capitalist coup.
I can understand why mainstream media supports clearing the way for the steamroller to further the libertarian capitalist project, but why are progressive and liberal commentators buying the Democrat’s latest sleaze?
If the individual mandate represents the Democrats best, then we need to preserve and strengthen the filibuster to prevent more Alitos and individual mandates in the future.
-marc
sorry i didnt answer this sooner but i didnt notice it till now.
“We’re lucky to get close to 50% of registered voters voting in any given national election. A large percentage of those voters are ill informed, relying on corporate media outlets for their information. What kind of legislation do you think we’d end up with when the real majority of Americans don’t vote or have no clue what they’re voting on? Do we require all citizens register to vote and vote? How would we enforce that?”
first of all i dont believe the senate serves any democratic function so it should be abolished. we need a system of representation that serves the majority. the electoral college system should be abolished. this is what i mean by “direct voting”. It is more democratic than the dysfunctional system we use now but i think more democracy is better. as to the apatheic and ignorant character of most american voters, i belive that is a function of the system we now have, not the other way round. The problem of a corporate media which serves the elite, we can discuss when better options are on the table. i think thats an unavoidable feature of capitalism, and i think capitalism is a problem, not a solution.