HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » How risky is filibuster r...

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:24 AM

How risky is filibuster reform?

The main concern I have about filibuster reform is that the Senate is fundamentally an undemocratic institution. By affording each state 2 Senators regardless of the population of that state, it gives an unfair advantage to the rural and racist states. Most states are in fact generally red states. While right now filibuster reform will help Obama and the Senate has more often been Democratic than Republican, how confident are you that states like Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia will continue to have at least one Democratic senator? In fact, since Reagan the Senate has been Republican about half the time, and frankly in general Republican Senators are worse than Democratic Senators are good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators

5 replies, 702 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply How risky is filibuster reform? (Original post)
Onlooker Jan 2013 OP
Loudly Jan 2013 #1
Cosmocat Jan 2013 #2
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #3
bemildred Jan 2013 #4
musiclawyer Jan 2013 #5

Response to Onlooker (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:42 AM

1. Be squealing for the filibuster when no longer in the majority.

 

Yeah I said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:46 AM

2. As if

the moment Mitch McConnell has so much as a 51 to 49 "majority" he would not change the rules anyways ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:05 AM

3. the old way would still exist ..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:00 PM

4. What is risky is keeping it. Keeping it will keep our government disfunctional.

You cannot let one or a few people bring the government to standstill. Such a government is a useless burden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:44 PM

5. This post is conventional wisdom and wrong

Yeah I expect the republicans to take full control of the senate one day and they WILL do the nuclear option. But by the Democrats doing it now, they creates space between themselves and the GOP eventual attempt at undoing. Assuming meaningful reform happens this month, the Democrats can actually pass good laws that will die in the House thus making crystal clear to the low information voter who is responsible for the gridlock. Right now both parties get blame because the senate is seen as dysfunctional too..... More importantly, without meaningful reform, Obama's second term is over before it starts. That's really all you need up know. That reform is the only chance at flipping the house is just gravy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread