If you pay enough attention to such matters, you already know much of what follows. But as long as the will of the majority of Americans is being held hostage by the inability of Senate Democrats to get votes on many important matters, and as long as the filibuster question is constantly being willfully distorted by those who benefit from it, a few basics about the filibuster and its history are worth reviewing.
The filibuster rule was not intended nor foreseen by the sainted framers of the Constitution, nor is it, of course, written into the Constitution. There was no filibuster in the early years of the republic. There was, in fact, under Senate rules that applied when many Framers of the Constitution were actually serving in the Senate, a motion to cut off further debate and call a question to a vote in the U.S. Senate.
That motion could be and often was adopted by a simple majority vote. There were no filibusters and no demand for one as a way for the Senate minority to frustrate the will of the majority.
In 1806, during an overall updating of Senate rules, the rule allowing a motion to end debate and take a final vote was left out, apparently on the grounds that the rule was seldom if ever invoked. And, in fact, for another 30 years no one filibustered and no one noticed.
The first filibuster, as we now use the term to utilize endless non-debate “debate” to prevent a vote on a bill, occurred in 1837 on a minor matter. But the real birth of the filibuster occurred in 1841 when a minority of senators who opposed the chartering of a new national bank promised to continue debating indefinitely, forcing the majority to back down.
A Senate rule, allowing a two-thirds vote of the Senate to end debate and force a final vote on a bill, was adopted by an overwhelming, bipartisan 76-3 vote in 1917. Filibusters remained rare for several more decades, until the 1960s when they became a favorite tactic of southern senators to prevent final passage of civil rights bills. Filibusters remained relatively few until the hyper-partisanized 21st century, when they have become routine.
In 1975, the Senate lowered the threshold necessary to end debate and force a vote from two-thirds to three-fifths. Still the number of filibusters continues to climb.
(This link will show you the number of cloture votes taken by Senate session. It never exceeded seven in any two-year Senate session until the 1970s then rocketed upward, broke 100 for the first time in 2007-8, hit 298 in the last full Senate session ending in 2020, and is on track to break that record in the current session. The same link will show that, more than half of the time, cloture votes fail, which means the filibuster remains in effect and the underlying bill doesn’t advance to a final pass-or-fail vote.)
You could argue that it hardly matters whether bills come to a vote in the Senate, because of the Joe Manchin-Kyrsten Sinema barrier. But Manchin and Sinema have not come out against many of the bills in question. They have focused their reluctance on changing the filibuster rule to allow the bills to come to a vote at all.
We are talking about bills that, polls show, have substantial majority support in the country, have a House majority ready to pass them, a president anxious to sign them, but can’t get them through the Senate because a senator from the 14th (Sinema) and a senator from the 40th (Manchin) most populous states are unwilling to vote to change a rule that allows a minority to prevent a bill from even from coming to a vote.
“We are talking about bills that, polls show, have substantial majority support in the country” A meaningless note since no one has actually read any of the bills in question. All we have are broad descriptions in the press that typically leave out important details (like banning all voter ID laws).
Regardless, if they do, the democrats will rue the day they eliminated the filibuster. All they have to do is look at the roster of the Supreme Court and remind themselves how that came about. And all to pass some laws that, in the end, won’t pass constitutional muster with SCOTUS. Oh well.
The Manchin bipartisan compromise included voter ID. The problem with the Right is that an NRA membership cards gets’ you right in, but a student ID, not so much.
The right needs to stop defending the indefensible and sit down and get to the desired needs of the majority of the people.
Whoops! Those are the things that will make them extinct. No, keep obstructing everything and maybe their fantasies of a 30% minority ruling the other 70% will come to pass.
Time for Manchin and Sinema to stop laying down ultimatums to Biden and Schumer and give one to McConnell:
“Here are common sense voter rights reforms, supported by many of your members, let’s get to 60 votes on these or we will join our D comrades and give you both the John Lewis and HR1/S1 as law. You have 30 days…”
I know that correction of the record is impossible, and “conservatives” will simply believe what they want to believe whatever the facts, but Harry Reid (and his caucus) abolished the filibuster for lower executive agency positions and lower court judges, not Supreme Court justices. This was because McConnell’s Minority was using the filibuster to literally block every nomination made by Obama after the 2012 election.
It was Mitch McConnell and his minority faction “majority” that abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, in order to get the radical conservative Gorsuch confirmed, Trump’s first (of three) democratically-illegitimate justices. That occurred in 2017.
Incredible, but true!
You don’t like the filibuster rule, get 60 votes and change it. Over 70% of Americans believe you should show an ID to vote. Another majority of Americans believe you need to request an absentee ballot to vote by mail and not send out ballots indiscriminately. Media conflated folks wanting to vote by mail during COViD to a mandate of randomly sending out absentee ballet request forms to everyone….. So much for getting 60 votes to change ID laws and vote by mail.
The idea that the voting rights bills now before Congress is a lie pushed by the right-wing agitprop machine. The bills would delineate the acceptable forms of ID.
Voting by mail has the support of a majority of Americans, as does early voting.
RB, yes Americans want vote by mail when a person requests an absentee ballot for themselves. What they don’t want is sending out absentee request ballots to everyone, which many states did in 2020. Big difference between the two. What form of ID is deemed acceptable for Democrats to vote in 2021 bill. Please be specific.
“What they don’t want is sending out absentee request ballots to everyone, which many states did in 2020.”
That is a matter to take up with the states, as the federal legislation does not mandate that practice.
Section 1801 (a) of the Freedom to Vote Act sets out the requirements for acceptable forms of identification, and requires states to provide identifying documents without charge. There are 20 types of identifying documents, and you can check them out here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2747/text#toc-HA4D9596CF9E345BC8C0901241BB32845.
And for those click resistant, here is the whole list. And I am sure our right wing friends will be horrified by some of the items below. That is why we sit down and negotiate to a mutually agreeable outcome. But why do that when all you have to do is say no and file a pain free filibuster?
“(i) A driver’s license or an identification card issued by a State, the Federal Government, or a State or federally recognized Tribal government.
“(ii) A State-issued identification described in paragraph (4).
“(iii) A United States passport or passport card.
“(iv) A employee identification card issued by—
“(I) any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States Government or of any State,
“(II) any State or federally recognized Tribal government, or
“(III) any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of a State.
“(v) A student identification card issued by an institution of higher education, or a high school identification card issued by a State-accredited high school.
“(vi) A military identification card issued by the United States.
“(vii) A gun license or concealed carry permit.
“(viii) A Medicare card or Social Security card.
“(ix) A birth certificate.
“(x) A voter registration card.
“(xi) A hunting or fishing license issued by a State.
“(xii) A identification card issued to the individual by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) program.
“(xiii) A identification card issued to the individual by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
“(xiv) A identification card issued to the individual by Medicaid.
“(xv) A bank card or debit card.
“(xvi) A utility bill issued within six months of the date of the election.
“(xvii) A lease or mortgage document issued within six months of the date of the election.
“(xviii) A bank statement issued within six months of the date of the election.
“(xix) A health insurance card issued to the voter.
“(xx) Any other document containing the individual’s name issued by—
“(I) any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States Government or of any State;
“(II) any State or federally recognized tribal government; or
“(III) any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of a State.
RB, exactly!!! It is a matter for the States, that is why they can’t get 50 votes to federalize the elects…. I knew you would see the light.
I wouldn’t get too enthusiastic, Joe. I merely said what is happening. Congress could order that ballots be mailed to everyone for congressional elections, since Congress has the authority to be the regulator of the manner of conducting federal elections.
Thanks for your endorsement of 100% mail in voting:
“In all-mail elections, all registered voters are sent a ballot in the mail. The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off.
Ballots are mailed out well ahead of Election Day, and thus voters have an “election period,” not just a single day, to vote. All-mail elections can be thought of as absentee voting for everyone. This system is also referred to as “vote by mail.”
Eight states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington—allow all elections to be conducted by mail.”
There’s a difference between a request for an absentee ballot and the absentee ballot itself. Which are you referring to? And what – if any problem – is there in sending out ballot requests? (As opposed to actual ballots.)
Pat, if you want an absentee ballot, write in and request one. Sending out request forms to every voter, dropping them off at drop boxes is not secure enough of a system…… Never done before 2020, should never be done again… Period!
Correction: the drop boxes we use where I live currently are inside secure govn bldgs, with security staff present days and the bldg locked up at night. I would never use one just plopped down anywhere or that miscreants could mess with or carry off….
You’re still muddying the distinction between the REQUEST for a ballot and the BALLOT itself. I can understand why folks might object to ballots being mailed out to everyone. But I can’t for the life of me figure out what the problem is with mailing out unsolicited ballot REQUEST forms.
Because Democrats – or, more precisely, people who are in groups deemed likely to vote Democratic – will request them and be able to vote.
Next question.
IMO, the *only* reason to force prospective voters to “write in to request ballots” is to keep people from voting in greater numbers. It’s obvious that younger people – a huge source of prospective new voters, people who hold one or more jobs and have kids, people who are new to the area, and people with disabilities are all more likely to vote if requesting a ballot is straightforward. But I suppose those are the “wrong” people, amiright?
The problem is that Democrats are more likely to request them — it’s a matter of demographics, not democratics.
And I always thought you guys favored State’s Rights?
I guess only when it come to suppressing the vote, not expanding it:
“In all-mail elections, all registered voters are sent a ballot in the mail. The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off.
Ballots are mailed out well ahead of Election Day, and thus voters have an “election period,” not just a single day, to vote. All-mail elections can be thought of as absentee voting for everyone. This system is also referred to as “vote by mail.”
Eight states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington—allow all elections to be conducted by mail.”
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections.aspx
I understand that all-mail elections routinely occur in parts of other states, including Minnesota. Local elections officials find them more practical than setting up a polling place for small numbers of voters.
Or large. Esp during a pandemic…with many in line unmasked and unvaccinated. They are also easier for the disabled and elderly who can’t stand or sit in line outside (in the sun, rain, wind….) or for hours and hours…. So they’re safer and more efficient. –> But that’s not at all what today’s REPS want, is it??
Edward, all for states rights, always! That is why the Democrats can’t get 50 votes to Federalize the elections. Also, nobody has seen what the voting rights bill has in it, another good reason not to vote for it.
“Also, nobody has seen what the voting rights bill has in it . . .”
I thought I posted a link to the bill yesterday. Is your browser not working? Or do you just not want to read the bill, in case you learn that it isn’t as bad as you’ve been told?
Very true…
It would be very constructive if our small band of dedicated Right Leaners could be a little more diligent in their responses: Seems they love to throw the bait out to the majority Left Leaners here, get a quick pile of responses and then move on to the next spot where they can toss in their next grenade and never defend their post. Now, given the facts, I can appreciate the difficulty of the task they face, but please give it a try.
Thanks, Joe, for presenting us with a truly classic example of Joseph Heller’s “Catch 22.” Or, phrased differently, “Heads, I win, tails, you lose.”
Nothing that you or Dennis Tester, our most reliable reactionary voices here, have written addresses Eric’s assertion that two Senators from states representing a very small minority of the nation’s population are preventing even a floor vote on legislation that polls show are supported by a sizable majority of the population. If it gets voted down, so be it, and so, too, the consequences with one’s constituents in the next campaign. Not allowing that vote to take place is a tactic borrowed from every authoritarian regime that ever existed. With proper safeguards – which ALL the actual evidence from the election of 2020 says are in place – there’s nothing wrong with sending absentee ballots out to everyone the state’s Secretary of State has on the rolls as registered voters. Making voting easy and convenient for every voter shouldn’t even be a topic of discussion – it should be a given – in a country that likes to think it has a government of, by and for the people.
Pass any Voting Laws you choose by removing the filibuster for voting bills. When Republicans get control, they’ll do the same thing. And worse.
They already have. What’s your point?
At the Federal level. That’s my point!
Yeah, its all about red hats will get even with the blue hats, revenge, payback, whatever, not about what makes sense, screw that “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union………..” That’s all BS right?
So your contention is that now liberals should never do anything, because conservatives might disagree and take counteraction. Apparently liberals don’t have a similar option? Or are you suggesting that liberals should just never pass any policy, because reasons, or that conservatives must always be consulted, again because reasons? Exactly when did conservatism get veto power over society?
Since McConnell took over the Senate.
Matt, Justice Amy Coney Barrett thanks the late Harry Reid everyday. I believe she maintains good health. That way she can write her opinions for the next thirty years.
So again, liberals should unilaterally disarm, to avoid what again exactly? You’d prefer we just roll over and avoid commotion, or what? Look, I get it, you don’t think the liberal viewpoint has any validity, and shouldn’t have a seat at the table, but why in the world do you think stating as much is going to persuade anyone who doesn’t share that view? I make no bones about the fact that I feel conservatism is garbage ideology, and SHOULD be removed from public discourse, but I would never assume that if I tried to convince s conservative if that fact, they’d do anything but laugh at best, and violently resist at worst.
If you win (or get the votes) you’re entitled to do whatever you please. Your brand of liberalism, is never going to obtain the votes. You can consider your views superior. No one will stop you. However again, you’re never going to get the votes.
Unless, a minority in one house of one branch of the Federal government disagrees. Literally the point of the piece. So in essence, you argue the only way a party, any party, can legitimately make policy in this country is to obtain a supermajority in the Senate. You understand how ludcrious that is? That you have essentially created an ungovernable society but for an autocratic power moving in and abolishing those institutions as anything but a rubber stamp? You wonder why we say conservatives are authoritarian and anti-democratic.
“Matt, Justice Amy Coney Barrett thanks the late Harry Reid everyday. I believe she maintains good health. That way she can write her opinions for the next thirty years.”
So, you are such a believer in the goodness of Mitch McConnell that if Reid would not have opened up lower court confirmations, Mitch would never have opened the door on SCOTUS nominations?
I suggest she thank the lying weasel Lindsey Graham who said he would never ram through a nomination in the last year of a President’s term. If you can watch this and not wretch over the scum we have in congress “Dirty Jobs” needs you:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4907562/user-clip-hold-tape
I think I’m quite happy for Harry’s vision today, considering we might not have a new Supreme Court justice until 2o24 in the alternative.
I still don’t understand what happened to the movement to reinstate the talking filibuster. I seem to recall that Manchin and/or Sinema were okay with it (sorry I don’t remember which one of the two was or wasn’t right off the top of my head) and that seemed like a fairly good solution – if the filibuster stays, make it painful again.
But somehow that just seemed to fizzle out somewhere along the line.
Biden wanted to pull the country together. Be polite, compromise, negotiate. Many Americans long to have that again, in DC and across the land. But the REPS/McConnell are doing the same thing they did w Obama: Be rigid, lie like crazy, work overtime trying to block him & break him and make him look bad and be completely unsuccessful. That is, destroy him by any means. I think Biden is finally understand his congenial approach is never gonna work. Hope he’s got some fire in him and is ready to unleash it! Sinema & Manchin sb booted from the DEM party; they have proven zero interest in supporting it’s agenda but have become wealthy obfuscating and voting against it. Their fealty is to vested interests/lobbyists. I hope new, strong candidates run against them and win by wide margins. No 2 people in Congress should ever have the manipulative power those two currently have. They are placing themselves above the country’s needs and that is WRONG on every level:(
The problem is not the filibuster itself, but the perversion of how it has been used in recent years. In the old days, when someone wanted to filibuster a bill, they actually had to stand on the floor 24/7 as long as it took, or they gave up in exhaustion. While this was going on, all other business in the Senate ground to a halt. As a result, this tactic was seldom used.
In recent years, anyone could announce that they were going to filibuster a bill, and then the bill would get sidelined so that the business of the Senate wouldn’t come to a grinding halt. As a result, if you don’t have 60% support for any bill, it doesn’t get voted on. That’s what needs to change, so that filibusters are only used in exceptional circumstances where the minority is adamantly committed to blocking a bill.
I disagree and agree. I think the filibuster itself is problematic by itself. Although it is not unconstitutional, it certainly is outside the scope of what was contemplated by the Constitution. Also, even after making allowance for the existence and power of the US Senate, it is a fundamentally anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic practice.
That said, I agree with returning to the talking filibuster. I don’t see any realistic prospect for ending the practice, so if a Senator or group of Senators wants to block legislation, make them work for it. Make them come to the Senate floor and speak for hours on end and take a public stand in opposition. Enough of this political cowardice of hiding behind some hypothetical vote total: come out and put some effort into it.
It’s not unconstitutional because the Founders didn’t conceive of anything so stoopit.
Is that the problem in politics in general.
Perversion of the rules by dishonorable people.
As they say, locks are for honest folks
In the older days, there was no filibuster.
Why is it ok when the Democrats want to change age old established political institutions?
State control of Voting (ID included)
The Senate Fillibuster
The Electoral College
Number of Supreme Court Judges
Letting non citizens vote
If it was the other side trying to change these things there would be people shouting ‘Fascists’ from the roof tops. Seems to me that it is an undemocratic grab for power. Harry Reid tried this and look what that got him.
1. Federal elections are under the purview of Congress, if the Constitution of the United States provides any guidance in the matter.
2. The filibuster is a relic that relies on a misreading of Senate Rules by Aaron Burr. What good is it?
3. You know it would take a constitutional amendment to do that, right? And that a constitutional amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states? Sure, you do.
4. Instead of hiding behind procedural rules, come out and debate the size of the Supreme Court. Why is nine the magic number?
5. No one outside of New York City has enacted a law allowing non-citizens to vote, although I’m sure it’s a good thing for whipping the right-wing base into a frenzy (reality being unimportant to that crowd).
to #4: the size of the Supreme Court has varied over it’s history.
to #5: let anyone who pays taxes have a vote (this is not the same as restricting voting to tax payers).
#4: Not for a hundred fifty years. How much more established can a norm be?
#5: Non-American individuals and corporations all over the world pay U.S. taxes. Do they get to vote too?
#4: The Constitution.
#5: An interesting idea, but I would not propose it.
You are ignoring his point. All these are long-established norms which, if changed as demanded, would greatly enhance the Dem’s power. How do you think that looks to the GOP?
Who cares? When was the last time anyone cared how anything conservatives did looked to anyone else? Hell, in your opinion they can storm the parapets, kill public officials, foment insurrection, and its just “expressing an opinion”.
Well that’s a nice, even-handed response. As for “storm the parapets, kill public officials, foment insurrection” no one anywhere promotes that, except in your overheated imagination.
Umm, there’s only one of us pretending to have no bias. It ain’t me.
“You are ignoring his point.”
Responding to each argument raised =/= ignoring the poster’s point. Over the years, I have given a fair amount of time over to the study of rhetoric. I must say, your point is a new one.
“All these are long-established norms which, if changed as demanded, would greatly enhance the Dem’s power.”
Perhaps, although I fail to see why “long-established norms” are sacrosanct. I’m sure the Founders would have scoffed at the idea.
I’m sure they would also have scoffed at the idea that partisan balance is an inherently good thing (they wouldn’t have approved of our contemporary partisan politics, for openers). If increasing the opportunities for political participation gives one party an advantage, that is the fault of the other party or parties. Giving them a handicap* when they can’t persuade voters is contrary to even more fundamental norms.
“How do you think that looks to the GOP?”
They will be denied a baked-in advantage in the system? Too bad, so sad. Let me flip your question around: how does it look to Democrats that Republicans are devoted to the “norms” that give them an advantage? Is that at all important?
*As the term is used in sport, not referring to a disability.
If you’ve studied rhetoric then you know you respond to the point. Mr. Weir’s point in his post is that these issues are being promoted. Arguing their value is a separate issue.
Actually Mr. weir asked “why is it ok when Dems…?” and then accused them of seeking an “undemocratic grab for power”, both of which invited a substantive response, which he got. And one which he likely sought, not the dry, uninteresting, meaningless and desiccated “point” that you seem to think the only valid response. So I don’t think you have a good appreciation of Mr weir’s “point” or a proper response to it, sad to say.
And If your version is the only true methodology of “rhetoric”, it’s no wonder its study has rather declined. But methinks that is more likely your blinkered view of the subject.
The study of logic hasn’t declined. Not that I’m aware. And Weir’s point is that all these Democrat-fueled reforms would, ta da! enhance Democrat power. He accurately points out what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot.
Mr. Weir’s point, as you put it, boils down to “both sides do it” and Democrats are hypocrites for objecting to Republican obstructionism. “Both siderism” is not a “point” but logical fallacy rhetoric which avoids addressing the “point” of EB’s main article about the lack of any rational or valid policy basis for the filibuster. The answer is that there is no rational or good policy support for a custom or practice that had its origin in an historical oversight.
No one has pointed out so far on this thread of comments that through most of the history of the filibuster, it was not wielded in a partisan basis but by Southern Democrats to block often bipartisan legislation to promote civil rights. Especially voting rights. It’s only become politically partisan since the GOP inherited and embraced the role of Strom Thurmond and other racist Dixiecrats.
Another thing: “voter ID” has never been an issue until recently when the GOP invented it to preempt their understanding that their candidates might never win if voting became popular and turnout was great. Most of the claims of “voter fraud” are purely imaginary.
“there is no rational or good policy support for” the filibuster. Really? None? A little research finds lots of “rational” and “good policy” reasons. And I mean lots. It forces legislative bodies to respect the opposition. In other words, half of America. It discourages extremism. It crafts better bills. It reinforces consensus. It prevents a slender, extremist, united majority from running roughshod over the rest of us.
Giving Democrats unlimited power by ditching the filibuster, increasing the size of the Supreme Court, federalizing elections, ending the electoral college, etc. might seem like a great idea. Why not? We’re the good guys! But good guys don’t always stay good, and it doesn’t take a history degree to see why doing away with bipartisanship is the worst thing a country can do.
One party rule? One party can be hijacked by a tyrant. Look at the Republicans. Have you learned nothing?
That’s more to the point.
But they’re not good reasons for supporting the filibuster especially in its current form. As state d in Eric’s article here and before and in endless comments, the current filibuster allow a a single senator to veto the legislation of the majority. That anything but democratic.
As far as respecting minority rights, we’ve had plenty of history how the filibuster prevents that from working. Witness the inability of the majority ever to enact any law against lynching. That’s how try he finished is working to prevent or water down any legislation that the major ity wants to enact. The Senate in alre Ady overgirded with “safeguards” by allowing underpopulated States from having voting power against legislation they find unreasonable.
Our system is based upon presuming elected representatives in two legislative houses being reasonable. How more antidemocratic do you have to be before all you have is oligarchy. Actually, you should be happy because it”s already here. None of us are really “citizens” any longer.
Like they’re not in the majority, or likely to be.
The democratic answer would be to convince more people to vote for them.
1. Federal elections are under the purview of Congress, if the Constitution of the United States provides any guidance in the matter.
The states are the ones who actually administer the elections, even the federal elections.
2. The filibuster is a relic that relies on a misreading of Senate Rules by Aaron Burr. What good is it? It is the whole reason the senate exists, a stabilizing influence to the reactionary House of Representatives. It takes 60 votes to move to closure.
3. You know it would take a constitutional amendment to do that, right? And that a constitutional amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states? Sure, you do. Thanks for you condescending attitude. I do know that, does the editorial contributors to minnpost.com know this? Seems we have an article every 2 days on how terrible the electoral college is. We need, just one article to say it isn’t every going to happen, because of x,y and z.
4. Instead of hiding behind procedural rules, come out and debate the size of the Supreme Court. Why is nine the magic number? The point isn’t the what is the magic number, the point is today the dems decide is should be 15, in 18 months the repub’s decide is should be 25, then in 6 years the dems decide it is 33. etc.. etc.. Its the timing of the change that matters.
5. No one outside of New York City has enacted a law allowing non-citizens to vote, although I’m sure it’s a good thing for whipping the right-wing base into a frenzy (reality being unimportant to that crowd). Actually it is quite a long list. DC, NYC, San Francisco, Several other cities and municipalities. The problem with it is how do you administer it? Many of these elections are common, and in many cases a common ballot.
1. “The states are the ones who actually administer the elections, even the federal elections.”
Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution allows the states to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives”, but also gives Congress the power to “make or alter” those regulations.
2. “[The filibuster] is the whole reason the senate exists, a stabilizing influence to the reactionary House of Representatives. It takes 60 votes to move to closure.”
What ahistorical nonsense. While the Senate may have been created as a balance to the reactive House of Representatives, the filibuster was not contemplated in its creation. If so, there would have been no reason to give the Vice President a tie-breaking vote, nor would it have made sense to include specific supermajority requirements. The filibuster is a procedural move designed to delay legislation that would otherwise pass the more deliberative Senate.
3. “Thanks for you condescending attitude.”
You’re welcome. For all their professed devotion to the Constitution, conservatives seem incapable of understanding any part of it beyond the Second Amendment.
“I do know that, does the editorial contributors to minnpost.com know this?”
Probably. I have yet to see any article or comment saying that Congress could abolish the Electoral College without such an amendment.
4. “The point isn’t the what is the magic number, the point is today the dems decide is should be 15, in 18 months the repub’s decide is should be 25, then in 6 years the dems decide it is 33. etc.. etc.. Its the timing of the change that matters.”
Let it be brought out and debated then. I don’t understand your “timing” remark. Would the timing be better if it were proposed by a Republican Congress during the term of a Republican President?
5. “Actually it is quite a long list. DC, NYC, San Francisco, Several other cities and municipalities. The problem with it is how do you administer it? Many of these elections are common, and in many cases a common ballot.”
I stand corrected. Administration would be a problem for the cities then, wouldn’t it? At the risk of getting to complex, perhaps they could make two ballots.
And until recently, the Second Amendment referred to the formation of state militias (currently the National Guard).
That’s because “original intent” now means “the contemporary GOP platform.”
As of the 2020 election, the party platform was revised to “Whatever Donald Trump says it is.” Given a chance recently to revise that, Sen McConnell said “We’ll let you know later.”
See my reply to Raj above, and ask yourself why you think conseratives and conservatism deserves and in fact demands special consideration.
Of course you missed the part where non citizens would be allowed to vote in local elections, not federal. There is a long history of states allowing non citizens to vote locally, goes back to the founding, but now that Faux news got a hold of the scary story, man, the base’ umbrage meter is about pegged, almost like their heads are going to explode.
Is now a good time to bring up Trump’s recently uncovered draft memo instructing the military to grab and haul off all voting machines across the country???? Yeah…. The REPS still support him and his reprehensible & criminal behaviours and his treasonist coup attempts. ***The DEMs absolutely do not and would never.*** There’s the glaring difference.
Ever heard of Chicago? Boston?? Yeah the Dems would never hijack the system. Wise up. They’ve been on the Friends and Family Plan since the very beginning. They’re no better than the GOP.
“We are talking about bills that, polls show, have substantial majority support in the country, have a House majority ready to pass them, a president anxious to sign them, but can’t get them through the Senate because a senator from the 14th (Sinema) and a senator from the 40th (Manchin) most populous states are unwilling to vote to change a rule that allows a minority to prevent a bill from even from coming to a vote.”
Sort of true. There are also 50 other Senators who are unwilling to change the filibuster rule. More true.
Until of course the shoe is on the other foot. Then if course they’ll be racing to their seats to cast the vote.
Manchin and Sinema are simply on the take.
Sinema’s campaign coffers are overflowing with GOP money, when she bows out they will follow that up with high paying job offers. How else does the former green party activist Sinema get to now? Bought and paid for: she has a lot of clothing bills.
And Manchin? Blood is thicker than water: Daughter a pharma CEO and son a coal executive. That is why he rationalizes that the working of folks of W VA would use BBB funds to buy drugs and Family Leave opportunities to go hunting.
Expel them from the D Senate Caucus, strip them of committee assignments, hopefully they jump to the R side and let McConnell show all he can do in the run up to 2022 elections: Addition by subtraction.
Can we at least wait until Biden’s replacement for Justice Breyer is seated before we throw away control of the senate? (friendly sarcasm).
Seriously, senate Dems need those two apostates right now more than they need the Dems. Yes, Sinema should be primaried as a faux-liberal turncoat when she’s up for re-election (if she even elects to run again). And Manchin is unfortunately the very best that can be hoped for in that benighted part of the nation. And he’s doomed anyway.
We simply need more Dem senators, with precious few options. PA? WI? That’s about it.
Yes, I posted this a couple of hours before the Breyer announcement and thought afterward:
“Maybe not so hasty”
And ME, perhaps. Biden oughta appoint Sen Collins to Dept of Education or something & get a Dem in her seat.
Well, it’s hard to know what position to take on the continued existence of the filibuster. In the 21st Century it has been turned by “conservatives” into a partisan weapon to block and stymie majoritarian government by Dems when they took control of the federal government in 2008-14 and now in 2020-22. It is an effective device for governmental paralysis and dysfunction, and paralysis is essentially the preferred vision of federal “government” by today’s conservatives.
The difficulty with dispensing with all or part of the filibuster is that it obviously protected many important laws when the Trump minority faction Repub government was “elected” in 2016. So it has its uses for the sane majority portion of the country because the failed Constitution obviously allows durable minority faction rule, which is the only method by which today’s “conservatives” can obtain their power, electorally at least.
It is now obvious that many Repub controlled states are doing their best to undermine free and fair elections, to aid their radical rightwing candidates. A Dem will never be permitted to win a statewide election in FL, TX and numerous states of the Old Confederacy and new West. And the way the system of equal representation by “state” in the senate shakes out in the 21st Century is to heavily favor Repubs by giving them 2 senators from low population rural states; the ridiculous situation of 4 senators from ND and SD is exhibit A to this problem. And that anti-democratic mechanism can never be changed, as EB has frequently observed. So obtaining or retaining a Dem majority in the senate going forward will be increasingly difficult, if not impossible. That means the filibuster may be the last remaining line of defense for the non-radical majority.
I guess I’m on the fence. I can see the good and the bad. The weighing of that is difficult.
Any concept that if the Ds do the honorable thing, so will the Rs is sketchy at the very best.
The behind the scenes bargaining must be very interesting: Manchin said after the BBB failure:
“They know why they lost me and I know why they lost me, I’m not saying and you’ll have to ask them”
In his long convoluted run up to NO Manchin did show some openness to filibuster reform, mostly the return to talking. Again, who knows what happened. The Ds need to get their act together and if they can, there remains hope for 2022, Senate especially. Get to 52 and reduce Manchin to the pontificating hillbilly that had his moment in the sun and failed. Sinema is mentally unstable: from Green Party activist to the GOP lite kook of today.
I agree with your excellent characterization of both clowns.
Manchin is essentially a conflict of interest creature. How the GOP co-opted Sinema (D-AZ) deserves as serious deep dive by investigative journalists. Yes, she represents a (perhaps?) Purple state, but that doesn’t explain her decision to wreck the Dem party and become an actual defender of plutocrats, opposing (so-minor-they-wouldn’t-notice-them) tax increases on the super-rich.
As I suggested, she’s now doomed in Dem politics as a result of her GOP-enabling turncoatism…but let’s hope she’s too clueless/unstable to understand this!
It is a sad day in democracy when people are getting ostracized for standing up for their principals, and the principals of their constituents. Somehow we have empowered the whiners and complainers who can’t see that other people are entitled to an opinion that is different than their own.
Yes indeed, just ask Liz Cheney!
(And every other Repub that’s now been purged from the party for not slavishly toeing the Trumpite line…)