Voters of all stripes broadly agree on the kinds of changes they’d like to see. We need less money in politics. It should be easier to vote — early, in person, or by mail. And voters should be able to pick their own representatives, not the other way around.
The For the People Act, which passed the House earlier this year, would do all of these things. It includes new ethics rules for members, protects and expands the right to vote, and would restrict the extreme partisan gerrymandering that’s become commonplace. No wonder it’s popular — around two-thirds of Americans tell pollsters they support it.
It’s also, for now, doomed. And with a wave of voter suppression laws, new gerrymandering schemes, and ongoing efforts to discredit the 2020 election results still underway, that’s a very dangerous development for our democracy.
Explaining why reveals some truly absurd things about our system. For one thing, the law just “failed” by a party-line Senate vote of 50-50 — 50 Democrats for, 50 Republicans against.
Ordinarily, 50 votes should be enough to pass something in the Senate when the vice president supports it, as Kamala Harris does. But thanks to an arcane Senate tactic called the filibuster, opponents of legislation can force supporters to come up with 60 votes, instead of a simple majority.
It gets even more absurd when you realize that those 50 Democrats represent over 40 million more Americans than those 50 Republicans. And with the filibuster, Republicans representing just 20 percent of us can easily stop legislation that overwhelming majorities support.
The filibuster is how Republicans are holding up everything from universal background checks on gun purchases to popular laws that would protect the environment, the right to form unions, or now voting rights.
Republicans are champions of the filibuster now, but it was only a few years ago that they weakened it so they could pack the Supreme Court with unpopular nominees like Brett Kavanaugh, who was credibly accused of sexual assault.
Meanwhile, in states across the country, filibuster-free Republican legislatures are pushing hundreds of laws that will make it much harder to vote — or even, in some cases, let those same lawmakers overrule decisions made by voters.
Now that they’re in power, the Democrats could get rid of the filibuster. Hundreds of historians and political scientists, alarmed by the state-level onslaught against democracy, have warned that they’ll need to do just that. So too have hundreds of faith, labor, voting rights, and environmental groups.
[image_caption]Peter Certo[/image_caption]
But a small number of Democrats — notably Senators Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) — have steadfastly refused. In high-profile op-eds, they’ve called the filibuster essential to democracy and bipartisanship.
These claims are absurd. Plainly, the filibuster is enabling an extremely partisan assault on our democracy. If you commit to bipartisanship with a party that’s waging an all-out war on democracy, the only bipartisan thing you’ll win is its demise.
For now, pro-democracy groups are stepping up their pressure campaigns.
The Poor People’s campaign is marching on Manchin and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. Others are targeting the Senate’s Democratic leaders, who are only in power because an extraordinary mobilization last year helped them win the Senate despite the map being tilted toward Republicans by over 40 million people.
But the truth is, the movements and the voters have done their part to protect our democracy. If senators don’t do theirs, they may well deserve to lose — but not if they take our democracy with them. Tell your senators: End the filibuster, pass the For the People Act.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of OtherWords.org.
This commentary was originally published by OtherWords.org.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
“It gets even more absurd when you realize that those 50 Democrats represent over 40 million more Americans than those 50 Republicans. ”
Well maybe you can get MN democrats to campaign on this issue and campaign to change the constitution?
Please!
Of course – they will call you “Absurd” for proposing such a constitutional change.
The filibuster is not in the Constitution; in fact, while it is probably constitutional, it is not within the intent of the Founders as expressed in Article I.
Campaigning to change the senate numbers. We already know the filibuster is not in the constitution but the number of State senators described.
Is anyone seriously doing that? I’m sure that, in the fullness of things, there are those who would seriously advocate a smaller Senate, but using it as a campaign issue seems to be your unilateral creation.
There is reason to note the inherent irony of a supposedly democratic nation allowing itself to be hamstrung by a minority. Alexander Hamilton said of such a nation that its “situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”
Right. The filibuster is not in the Constitution — per se. But the Constitution does provide “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings … ” (Article I Section 5). And the filibuster is allowed by rules established by the Senate. (House rules do not, of course.)
It was not a rule contemplated by the Constitution. The Drafters considered, then rejected, a supermajority requirement for the passage of routine legislation. Supermajorities (which would make the explicit grant to the Vice President of a tie-breaking vote meaningless) are required only in specific situations (As the kids say, “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”).
Did we not have a “Democracy” in 2020 when Democrats used the filibuster 330 times? That is the definition of hypocrisy.
This should end the conversation. Sadly, it will not.
The Democrats have gone berserk. They have successfully recruited the media, big tech, the richest corporations, and rules be damned. It’s Donald Trump’s fault, of course. His election was a wake-up call for the elites. It must never happen again.
If you have something constructive to say, say it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other sites that welcome this kind of comment.
I find drinking games to be very constructive. YMMV.
This is a really good well written commentary. No other country has anything even remotely similar to the filibuster. It violates all of the underlying ideas of this country. Democrats should not be afraid to get rid of it. Yes in the near term we may suffer some setbacks but in the long term getting rid of it will allow Dems to pass so much more important widely supported legislation.
The problem with the filibuster is not that it exists, but rather that it has been abused by both parties for years. As originally designed, the filibuster required senators to hold the floor and debate an issue 24/7 until they either ran out of steam or the senate dropped the issue in question. For the duration of the filibuster, all other business in the Senate stopped, and no one could leave town due to the risk of missing a cloture vote. With this system, the filibuster involved very significant costs and inconveniences and was rarely used.
In recent times, if any Senator threatens a filibuster, the issue is just tabled and the Senate moves on to other business. As a result, there is no longer any cost associated with the filibuster, so it has become a daily technique to block legislation.
The filibuster serves a very useful purpose to prevent a majority from imposing its will over powerfully held minority beliefs. This benefits both parties. The Democrats will seriously regret getting rid of the filibuster in two years in the event that the Republicans take over both houses of Congress, which looks like it might be a real possibility.
The most pressing issue at stake here is our cherished DEMOCRACY! It is what will fail if something isn’t done. Soon. 400+ voter suppression laws have been written in red states, designed purposefully to disenfranchise minorities who tend to vote DEM. REP presidential candidates are landing in the highest position in the country despite losing the popular vote because the Electoral College votes no longer accurately represent the voters so small red states get more sway than much larger blue states. Stop and let that sink in. The REPS no longer negotiate or compromise. They no longer offer programs or policies. It’s all their way or the highway. They answer only to those with $$$. They care not at all about their constutuents wants or needs. Indeed they’ve been baldface lying to them the past 40+ years while grabbing all the the $$$, power and authority for themselves. They cater to the wealthy, whose fortunes have dramatically increased while average Americans are seeing the American Dream in the rearview mirror. They want our borders closed even tho America being a melting pot has been key to our success. They’ve been using the filibuster to ram through whatever they want, even Suprene Court candidates, but turn around and cry foul when the DEMs legitimately try to seat one. Thankfully that individual, Merrick Garland, is now the country’s Attn Gen and heads the Justice Dept. He has initiated a lawsuit against GA for their obvious Jim Crow 2 voter suppression laws; others will follow in more states. He vows to fight to protect ALL voters foundational rights. What we have in America now is a very corrupt, white nationalist, Fascist leaning REP party hellbent on oppression, heavy use of militaristic measures (Portland, Chicago, DC bible showing debacle), discrediting the media, lying thru their teeth incessantly, history denying, racist, bullying destructive group who do not think rules & laws apply to them. They are looking out only for themselves. They are manipulative, greedy, power hungry types who will say and do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power. They care not at all about anyone else and democracy be damned. The writing is on the wall. Everything is out in the open. There is no secrecy. Trump & Bannon–who is still heavily involved!–stood together on stage in 2016 b4 a ‘debate’ w Hillary and stated on camera to the world that their shared goal was to “obliterate the federal givernment”. That’s a quoted. How much more proof do you all need to understand that they are deadly serious?! They mean it. They prove it daily. They NEED TO BE STOPPED before they become any more successful in their attempts to take over America. The insurrection, sedition, treason of Jan 6th was FOR REAL. Directed by the psychopath Trump.. It was the 1st attempt. There will be more! Wake up, America!!!! They are engaged in outright war against us all. They fully intend to win, by whatever means necessary. –>That means we all must lose. The stakes have could not be higher. If you can’t muster yourselves to fight for you…then do it for your children and grandchildren. Because right here, right now, their futures–and that of the planet we all inhabit–are in grave jeopardy. THIS IS REAL. It is not a practice drill. Sit up and start paying attention.
Is it true to say the For the People Act law just “failed”? Isn’t it more accurate to say the cloture vote – vote to limit debate – failed? Obviously this effectively stops the legislation, but technically it supposed to mean Senators voting against cloture want additional debate on it.. Well then, debate it!
It’s well past time for the Senate to vote on fixing the filibuster – or as proposed by Al Franken and Norm Orenstein to “make the filibuster great again”. Instead of requiring 60 votes to end debate, require 41 to continue debate. This is a simple fix and Manchin/Sinema can keep their promise not to remove the filibuster. Majority leader Schumer can bring this to the floor any time. No more delays.
Whether the filibuster is evil or not depends on whose ox (partisan agenda) is being gored. It’s terrible if your party is in control, pushing controversial legislation; a worthwhile “defense” for a minority – seeking to prevent “tyranny by a majority.”
Filibusters were used infrequently (less than 10 filings for cloture) a session) until about 50 years ago. There were 24 filings for cloture in the 92nd session (1971-72) and steadily rising since (328 in 2019-2020 when Republicans held a Senate majority). The more divided the two major parties have become, the more frequent use of a filibuster.
Two-thirds of Americans at least, have no idea what is in that For The People Act, any more than they knew what was in the Patriot Act. As example It would ensure that no third party could arise, increasing eligibility requirements, cementing the two party duopoly. It would also solidify the use of paper ballot machines, which is categorically not the same as a paper ballot, and maintains the possibility of tampering. It radically expands mail-in balloting while limiting the ability to verify, opening up all manner of malfeasance. It centralizes voting dictate with the all powerful federal government. Many of those in support will say you are a racist if you object, which should be a sign that what the bill contains is not really about saving Democracy, but is largely a partisan and ideological power grab.
If the filibuster is good for anything, it is in limiting the power of the party in power to pass whatever they care to, while getting rid of everything the previous cycle enacted, back and forth, seesaw-like with serious destabalizing effects for the country over the long term. I think I would prefer stasis.
Frankly, this idea that the only thing that stands in the way of the total collapse of Democracy is the Democratic party is quite laughable. It seems more like what the Democratic party wants is to be the one and only party.
Your sources for your assertions is necessary for some readers. Just FYI
Here is Lambert Strether of Corrente and NakedCapitalism.com, breaking it down:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/03/h-r-1-the-for-the-people-act-legitimizes-wapos-propornot-reporting-institutionalizes-ballot-marking-devices-and-cripples-minor-parties.html
“In this post, I will focus on concerns more familiar to NC readers: H.R.1’s shocking[1] legitimation of the Washington Post’s McCarthyite PropOrNot debacle; its institutionalization of Ballot Marking Devices (which are not the same as “hand-marked paper ballots”), and its provisions to cripple third party formation and growth. I don’t know if these issues are deal-breakers for anyone, or anyone who matters, but I do know that the mainstream has not raised them.”
Mr. Strether is unlikely to be affected by the ballot suppression matters now flooding state legislatures, and seems to elide any concerns for partisan gerrymandering in favor of getting all in a huff about concerns about foreign interference. In any event, he in no way backs up your claim that 2/3 of Americans don’t know what’s in the For the People, Act, or that they care one way or another about the hypertechnical points about ballots.
The For the People Act is not perfect, but in the real world, we have to accept that sometimes.
The folks at NakedCapitalism were accused in 2016, in the Washington Post, along with 200 other independent media outlets, of being agents of Putin and Russia. Based on the history of McCarthyite blacklisting of people, and government criminalizing free speech, that you might imagine would be of concern to those who are merely critical of major media, Politics generally and our eternal war machine. But in my experience that is not at all a concern of those who suffer from”Trump Derangement Syndrome”, who seem to think the answer to foreign interference is government working with big tech to silence any domestic speech critical of official doctrine. “Cancel” also being the new word for black list and censor.
As for Mr Strether, he is quite critical of both parties maneuvers around voting, well aware that both parties are actively working out ways to leave it open to game the system, Repubs with their disenfranchisement schemes, Dems with unlimited mostly unchecked absentee voting and dubious voting machinery.
As for him not ratifying anything else I said, I took some of his critique, some from the critique by others, and some of it is my own interpretation.
I don’t understand. I was told if you oppose the For the People Act, or want to return election laws to pre-2020 standards, you are a racist. And conspiracy theorist. That’s what the NYT, WAPO, etc. say. That’s what all the big tech companies say. And the giant corporations. They’re not in anyone’s hip pocket, right? They just want to help the little guy, right?
Racist? My black and brown friends and family might disagree. A conspiracy theorist? I have always wondered about people who think that we have not landed on the moon, or that Jews control all banks and the world, or that Aliens control the world, but have nothing to say about the actual conspiracies that go on between the political parties, Corps, Banks, Media, CIA et al, and Millitary to make war and control society and the world….
Oh, and WaPo and NYT and the Corps and Banks and the Right do not want to help the little guys, they want to pit poor minorities and the poor white working class against each other to maintain the status quo economic movement of wealth up the social pyramid that has been going on for 40 years.
A good article but I’m unclear how a vote to repeal the filibuster can pass if there aren’t 50 votes in the Senate to do so. Are there Republicans prepared to support filibuster repeal?
I have to add this addendum after reviewing Robert A. Caro’s biography of LBJ: “Master of the Senate.” Caro writes in the Introduction, p. xxiii:
“The Senate, William S. White, the body’s most prominent chronicler, wrote in 1956, is ` the South’s unending revenge against the North for Gettysburg.’ Not just revenge but unending (italics by Caro) revenge.”
Caro was writing about the defeat of a 1956 civil rights bill, engineered by none other than LBJ. It was the seniority system which guaranteed committee chairmanships to long standing Senate members, all of whom then in the 1950’s were Southern Democrats, that prevented any progress of civil rights legislation after Brown v. Board of Education decided by the Supreme Court in 1954.
After the seniority for committee chair rules, the next great obstacle was the filibuster rule which Caro takes up at pp. 92-94. The filibuster rule was really never a rule but the “absence of a rule”; as Caro writes, a “rule that would force senators to stop talking about a bill, and vote on it.” p. 92. Most legislative bodies, like England’s Parliament (in 1604) had adopted such a rule, called a “motion for the previous question.” This was adopted by many other legislative bodies around the world including the US House of Representatives in 1789 and by 1948, 45 of the 48 legislative bodies of the individual US States. But never by the US Senate. The first attempt to curb the filibuster rule was in 1917 after President Wilson pressured the Senate to pass Rule 22 that allowed “cloture” on a pending measure what was presented by a petition by 16 Senators. “Cloture” required 2/3 vote of “present” senators. But the rule was riddled with loopholes: 1) there was no provision for voting which measure was then “pending” so no basis to force a senator from speaking an basis for getting the bill to the floor for the vote; 2) Rule 3 which allowed reading of the Senate Journal unless suspended by unanimous vote. It’s notable to me that this rule was adopted at the time the US was considering declaring war on Germany and entering into WWI, a highly controversial move, and the filibuster did not prevent that.
I understand that other loopholes have been added so that it’s no longer necessary for a senator to even speak to invoke the filibuster rule.
Caro has much more to write about the filibuster rule and LBJ but on p. 94 of his great biography he relates this from the “chronicler of the Senate” William S. White:
“The Senate, White summed up, `is, to a most peculiar degree, a Southern Institution. . . . growing at the heart of this ostensibly national assembly.” To a southern senator, White wrote, the Senate was `his great home.'” And because of the southerners’ `entrenched position of minority’ within the Democratic Party in the Senate, the home rested on a deep bedrock of power.”
Given the association of slavery with the Democratic Party of the 19th century and the party of slaveholders like Senator John C. Calhoun, it is difficult, no, impossible, to disassociate the filibuster rule with that legacy and the legacy of that party. It is particularly necessary to consider that the rise of the modern GOP , spearheaded by Goldwater and then by Nixon in the 1960’s, was to play upon the racism of white voters in the South of the 1950’s and 1960’s when the Democratic Party, lead by Lyndon B. Johnson, its standard bearer at the time, and the power behind the landmark 1964 and 1965 civil rights laws.
The bottom line to me is that any senator who claims that this rule, which is really the absence of a rule and a series of other complex rules designed to conceal that fact, is a protection for democracy by promoting bipartisanship is either criminally ignorant of the history of his/her institution or a liar. Any fair minded reader of history can only infer that the “absence of a rule” adopted by any other sane and democratic organization that prevents an “aye” or “no” vote on bills and resolutions is for the purposes of protecting a vested minority interest. In the 19th century it was the slaveholders who owned the most “property” valued in human beings; today, it is the value of corporations, valued in terms of the legally appropriated and capitalized output of such human beings after deducted the de minimus amount of their wages.
The problem, as Robert A. Caro wrote in “Master of the Senate” , is that Rule 22, is a “Catch 22.” Because any motion to repeal the filibuster is itself subject to the filibuster. If there aren’t 50 honest people in the Senate, all Democrats willing to repudiate the legacy of their own party, where will 19 other votes (48 Democrats plus 19 Republicans to reach 67 votes) willing to adopt a rule that essentially allows a “motion for the previous question” to be finally adopted after 215 years?
Senate Rules can be changed only by a vote of 2/3 of the members present and voting. Alternately, a Senator can raise a point of order that the rules of the Senate are being violated. If the presiding officer agrees, a new precedent is established which leads to a different interpretation of the rules. If the presiding officer disagrees, the ruling can be overturned by a simple majority vote.
A point of order could be raised that, for example, cloture on a voting rights bill requires only a simple majority. A favorable ruling by the presiding officer, or a simple majority vote in favor of that interpretation, would change the application of the Senate rule.
“We can have the filibuster or democracy, but not both”
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The filibuster was fine until your ox was being gored. The ox has changed over and over throughout our American history, but our Republic still stands, in spite of ourselves. If only the author had written this piece a few years ago… No, that would not have happened. Point. Set. Match.
“The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.”
The first time I heard that bromide, I was impressed by its insight. Then, I finished the sixth grade.
That phrase has always been used to justify going against the will of the majority (“We know better”). It was popularized by the John Birch Society in the 50s, and has been a staple of conservative discourse ever since.
The Founders had a different understanding of “democracy” than we do today. When they spoke of a republic, they didn’t mean for the term to be used as a justification for anti-majoritarian rule.
And yet today, the bromide is still true. Facts are facts.
And yet today, the bromide is as meaningless as it ever was (that’s the definition of “bromide,” in case you were wondering). It’s something people say when they want to sound profound when they argue against majoritarian rule.
“The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.” Fact. No matter how someone tries to twist the words, my statement is fact and the truth. Hard to admit, I know. Just imagine Al Franken saying it to ease your pain.
You can say that until you’re blue (red?) in the face, but it doesn’t give the statement a lick of meaning. It’s a smokescreen, used to justify thwarting the will of the majority to protect vested interests.
That sb republic and democracy. No caps. The USA is a republic (small ‘r’) with democratic (small ‘d’) processes. Never to be confused with the Republican and Democratic political parties.
This article is just a poor effort to end the filibuster, which has been in the Senate for a very long time. In 1917, the Senate voted to start cloture to end filibusters at a two-thirds vote. It was not until 1975 that it was reduced to 60 votes to end debate, much of it due to frustations from Democrats continued blocking expanded civil rights legislation.
We are a representative replublic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers understood that once a group or party gains the majority, it can create laws to cement its position of power. Part of what makes this country great is the protections a minority (not necessarily by race or creed) has. In history, when one party has perpetual power, that power continues to consolidate rather than belong to the masses. This stupid For the People Act consolidates voting power with the excuse that red states are making laws that suppress voter eligibilty and many are (so wrongly) racist laws. When in fact, like in Georgia, are laws that many blue states have. Still, this power grab that For the People Act should serve as a huge alarm by all in that its intention is to solidify one party to be in the majority and unconstitutionally directs states how to run their elections.
The part of all this that people don’t seem to understand is that once the balance of power goes to the other side, you are giving them free will to do these things. Those that support the end of the filibuster now will sing a different tune when that power changes to another party. Just look at what happened when Dem Senator Daschle helped end the filibuster on voting for federal judges. The Republicans pleaded for the Dems to not do it because it will have a drastic affect on the future. Now just look at what happened in the last 4 years. The much disliked President Trump got to name 3 people to the SCOTUS. Those 3 probably would be different people if the Dems didn’t switch the filibuster.
Now we are looking at the same thing for everything. It’s bad enough we also have ‘reconcilliation.’ That we get rid of the filibuster entirely would be a really, really bad thing. It’s not popular but that doesn’t mean it’s not right.
The problem is: we have a plutocracy not a democracy. The “minority” which the filibuster has been used to protect in this country are the 1% who have tilted the system to maintain their hold over wealth and property seized over the past 150 years by force and fraud to maintain their control on political power.
I think Mr. Holbrook suggested in reply to my previous comment that it might be possible to bring a voting rights bill to a vote and pass by a majority vote which would not eliminate the filibuster entirely but just for voting rights bills. Winston Churchill once said “. . . . democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” We’ve tried plutocracy and I think it’s time to try a representative democracy. It’s true that right now we have two sides: a hollowed out GOP which apparently represents the interests of Charles Koch and his fellow malefactors of great wealth, corporations (which are legal fictions) and their lackeys and the Democrats who represent the rest of us and a widely sorted collection of a lot of other interests, States and regions. Those interests, States and regions are not getting any representation under the present system. So you’re right, we have a representative democracy and eliminating the filibuster will shift the balance of power. But not how you imagine. The power will go back to the people whose representatives vote in favor of laws being being proposed, rather than never getting to even consider them because of this arcane rule.
Well put. I would further add that the attitude of the Democrats is plenty alarming. They openly say we don’t need another side. Yes, we do, and the filibuster is part of this.
That’s because you struggle with the concept that all ideas are not of equal merit. The fact another “side” exists does not warrant its inclusion in a discussion.
But who decides if any idea “does not warrant its inclusion in a discussion?” Are you satisfied to be told by others? Or do you want to make up your own mind? If it’s the latter, then you agree with me.
Objective reality decides. That society is some free-for-all, filterless, cacophony of opinions ricocheting back and forth, their relative relationship to true, verifiable facts immaterial, is dangerously naive. Chaos is not a preferable state of being.
I will agree, relying on truth does require a measure of trust in others to accurately ascertain that truth. If one finds themselves so sunk into the depths of paranoia that placing trust in anyone beyond themselves is impossible, engaging in pluralistic society will prove challenging without professional mental assistance.
I really don’t care about agreement. I want to hear alternatives. Agreement is boring.
This is supposed to be about governance, not entertaining those who can’t find other ways to amuse themselves.
Apathy and willful ignorance is more boring.
“Having another side” does not mean giving the minority position a veto.
They don’t have a veto, as you know. They have the right to keep a slight, ideologically-driven majority from running roughshod over the Senate.
They have a veto. What you classify as keeping “a slight, ideologically-driven majority from running roughshod over the Senate” is another way of saying the majority is not passing legislation that it wants to pass. In other words, a slight, ideologically-driven minority is preventing the passage of legislation.
I suggest you do some basic reading on the foundational principles of American democracy.
The point of a filibuster is, if it’s such good legislation, there will be a reasonable consensus. If one looks at filibusters, there are a great abundance of examples where the law in question should not have been passed, and the majority forced to make reasonable adjustments.
As for your assertion a “slight, ideologically-driven minority” being equivalent, this doesn’t hold water. A diverse minority is almost the rule in filibusters. For instance, HR-1 is opposed from conservatives to the Green Party. Hardly people united in ideology.
As for the Senate having a veto, no, they don’t. They can override a veto. Maybe this is what you’re thinking of.
“The point of a filibuster is, if it’s such good legislation, there will be a reasonable consensus.”
If the public supports specific pieces of legislation by 60-80% and it does not move forward year after year it becomes apparent that what the people want is irrelevant to what their legislators want.
Why the failure to move? Lobbyists, special interest groups and party politics. And given party loyalty, the same folks who favor something that is opposed by their representatives will not generally vote them out. Producing a status quo that prevents popular, common sense kinds of things that have broad support, like on guns, to stall forever.
If the opposition is truly against something, let them get up there and filibuster:
fil·i·bus·ter
/ˈfiləˌbəstər/
noun
1. an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.
“If one looks at filibusters, there are a great abundance of examples where the law in question should not have been passed, and the majority forced to make reasonable adjustments.”
Can you cite one out of that great abundance examples? The end result of a filibuster usually is that the legislation is abandoned without ever coming to a vote, if a cloture motion is unsuccessful.
The filibuster is not about compromise. It is a “my way or the highway” tactic grounded in a misreading of Senate Rules by Aaron Burr.
So your solution to being punched in the face is to allow the puncher to keep punching, as they might otherwise pull a gun in the future? That doesn’t seem wise.
Well maybe the article should have been titled the will of the people or the will of the politicians? Amazing on how much right wing nut complaining I hear about (rigged this, rigged that, term limits etc. etc. etc.) but when the time comes to fix all the rigging etc. etc. etc. the votes and dialogue are always to preserve the rigged system!
What seems lost in all this is the justification for the filibuster is to insure bipartisan support for legislation.
The items being filibustered are supported by a super majority of the people. Isn’t 60% + support bipartisan?
McCarthy and McConnell are betting on the disconnect between what people want and who they vote for.
This denial did not work so well in GA 2020 Senate elections and could be seen in 2022 and beyond:
“We’re the party of what 7 out of 10 people do not want” Is not a lasting and winning strategy.