US Senate and the Filibuster -- a 'modern invention' that allows veto by 10%

[grantcart]

Watching the Senate Finance Committee machinations on the health care debate has brought the spotlight on the obvious problem of special interests, their undue influence on policy and the American system of legalized bribery that is quaintly termed "campaign contributions". That this debate occurs at the same time that the United States Senators will also patronizing discuss the corruption and viability of the Karzai regime, a debate that has to be curtailed on Fridays so that Senators can fly home to attend weekend fund raisers, is of course ironic.

The reason that campaign financing does not find a more resonant response in the electorate is because it will have to be debated and voted on by the very people who will be disadvantaged by it, incumbent United States Senators. It also is difficult to see an effective regime that would prevent vested interests from using their resources to advance their influence both in public and private.

It is therefore unlikely that 90 days from now, even after their is a brief flirtation with populism that will be ignited by Moore's latest film, that any substantive structural reform will realistically pursued on campaign financing.

There does exist another area that deserves reform, rules of the United States Senate.


Democratizing the United States Senate

Let's start with the standard caveat that the United States is not a democracy but a republic and that a pure democracy would in fact not be desirable, that the lynch crowd gathering to bust a suspect out of jail for a lynching is an example of the type of evil that pure democracy is capable of. Ethnic cleansing in places like Baghdad are examples of the will of the majority inflicting democratic policies to the detriment of the majority and the minority.

The Senate was always understood to be a brake on that kind of democratic exuberance, but it wasn't intended to create a permanent wall to the democratic process.

Looking at the Schumer amendment for the Public Option, for example, illustrates the point.

States with Senators voting for the amendment(population in hundreds of thousands):
Delaware 0.8
Florida 18.3
Massachusetts 6.5
Arkansas 2.9
Oregon 3.8
New York 19.5
Michigan 10
Washington 6.5
New Jersey 8.6
West Virginia 1.8

Total Population 77.9 million

States with Senators voting against the amendment:

Montana 0.9
North Dakota 0.6
Arkansas 2.9
Iowa 3
Utah 2.7
Maine 1.3
Kentucky 4.2
Idaho 1.5
Kansas 2.8
Nevada 2.6
Wyoming 0.5
Texas 24.3
Arizona 6.5

Total Population 52.9


It is obvious by looking at the list that the power of small states with extremely low population have an exceedingly strong impact on legislation, an impact that threatens the basic democratic spirit of the institution. Senators from rural areas have less competition and longer tenure in the Senate.

However it is the rules of the Senate that give extraordinary powers to Chairman and to the minority that are making the Senate a monument against the basic understanding of democratic representation that must be addressed.

The 6 most senior Senators on the powerful Finance Committee are from Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Iowa, Utah and Maine whose average ranking would make it the 39th most populace state in the union.


The Senate has become more distorted toward minority power

The Senate's basic composition of 2 members from every state without regard to population and giving them longer tenure was intended to create a brake on the impetuous will of the people. Of course that was during a time when the average voter was already limited by various non democratic restrictions, by property, sex, age, and race.

Senate malaportionment has gone from 12:1 to 70:1. Now only 17% of the population could get a majority;
This was not how the Senate started

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Stat...

Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one Congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); at no time in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-Congressmen states.

The Filibuster exaggerates minority power in an institution that exaggerates power and it is getting worse.

The 20 smallest states with 40 senators have the power to stop all legislation in the United States Congress. The total population of these 20 states is 30 million, 6 million less than California and only 10% of the population.



History of the filibuster in the United States Senate

1) The ability to filibuster was not part of the original Senate rules In the beginning the collegiality of the Senate meant that there was normally a 'gentleman's agreement to end debate and in the first 11 years there was no filibuster and in 1806 revised Senate rules were passed that eliminated the call to "move the previous question". Only by accident and without intention by the writers of the constitution the Senate accidentally created the potential of filibuster in 1806 and the provision for super majorities needed to pass legislation.

2) The filibuster remained only theoretical and its first use was by Senator King in 1841.

3) The rule for cloture was only adopted in 1917 and from 1917 to 1949 the requirement for cloture was 66%.

4) The use, misuse and abuse of the filibuster rule started just 60 years ago and only became a regular feature of daily legislation 20 years ago




The filibuster is not part of our constitutional government and it is not a part of our legislative history in the form it is now. It was instituted by accident and used exceedingly sparingly until just a few years ago. At one point a single senator could stop the Senate. That number has been moved and there is no good reason why it should be 60.

Changes in demographics now mean that the minority has more power now than ever before. The entire US government can be held hostage by the representatives of a mere 10% of the population. Without the filibuster rule the Senate still gives extraordinary power to rural states as the lowest 25 populated states still only account for 17% of the population.

The senate has gone through many changes, including changing the voting from legislatures to direct sovereignty. Nevertheless the abuse of the filibuster rule has meant that the Senate has become a less democratic institution and not more. While the United States pontificates and lectures others about democracy its entire legislative process is stalemated by one part that is coming more and more under the influence of campaign contributions and concentrates more power in rural states with declining population rates.

The Democratic Party invented the Cloture rule in 1917. It is now time to eliminate 'cloture' and restore the rules of the Senate to the established Robert Rules of Order that allow for a vote to be called by a simple majority vote.

This is the time to rectify mistakes made by those who have meddled with the original interests and practices of the founding fathers of the Senate and eliminate the filibuster.


More on the filibuster here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

[demodonkey]

1. Senate Leadership COULD make all filibusters be a REAL filibusters....

...let's see how much stomach some of these fools have for filibuster if it means actually standing up in front of the Senate and millions watching at home on C-SPAN 2 (a very public window that did not exist decades ago) while they read the phone book or otherwise waste time.

[grantcart]

3. that is correct - suspension of Rule 22 would force them to stay by their desks

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster where no floor speech and no quorum is required may therefore be more powerful than an actual filibuster that would require attendance by a quorum of Senators as well as the physical presence of the Senators speaking.

Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.


Mansfield used it to defeat Thurmonds filibuster on the Civil Rights Act

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, James Strom Thurmond's own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

[pscot]

8. If the Senate Democrats had real leadership

N/T

[thunder rising]

2. What we need is 50 state strategy part II. Give the folks a choice.

When all you have for commentary is Limbaugh and no Democratic Party presence who are they supposed to vote for.

As Dean said, first just go ask them for their vote.

The states reacted well to the 50 state strategy and in fact if the DNC would get off their ass and keep it going we would be putting a lot of pressure on the winger wing of the Repugnant party.

[BlooInBloo]

4. See also...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/constitutional-c...

"This op-ed in today's Washington Post ponders one of the favorite quixotic dreams of many liberals: the elimination of the electoral college and the Senate, two of the two most egregiously undemocratic institutions in America. (There are others --- the Fed comes to mind.)

This essay discusses the well-known, bizarre fact that in our alleged democracy, Senators who represent 3% of the population have the power to decide something of great national import like health care reform --- and routinely do on the basis of narrow parochial interests. For those of us who live in great big states like California, one of the most frustrating things have to put up with is this constant refrain from rural and small population states that they are victimized when they clearly have veto power over the whole damned government and whose residents have far more power relative to their population."

[inna]

9. thanks for the links to Digby and WP, and KR for the OP.

this is so good that it's worth repeating: "the electoral college and the Senate, two of the two most egregiously undemocratic institutions in America. (There are others --- the Fed comes to mind.)"

from the WP article:

Why, for example, have even Democratic senators been resistant on health-care reform? It might be because so many of the key players represent so few of the voters who carried Obama to victory -- and so few of the nation's uninsured. The Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal -- without a public insurance option -- represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.

Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people -- less than New Jersey -- and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform.

The 10 largest states are home to more than half the people in the country, yet have only a fifth of the votes in the Senate. The 21 smallest states together hold fewer people than California's 36.7 million -- which means there are 42 senators who together represent fewer constituents than Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. And under Senate rules, of course, those 42 senators -- representing barely more than a tenth of the country's population -- can mount a filibuster.

And then there's the Senate's age-old distortion of distributive politics, in which goodies are doled out on anything but a per-capita basis. California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are among the 10 states that get the least back per tax dollar sent to Washington; Alaska, the Dakotas and West Virginia are among those that get the most.

[grantcart]

13. my problem with the electoral college and eliminating the Senate

is that it would require obvious constitutional ammendments and not realistic.



The filibuster is not part of the constituion, relatively recent in practice, completely arbitrary and further exaggerates the Senates non representation foundation.

It could be reduced to 55 or eliminated by the majority or simply remove rule 22 by Reid himself.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Sure. My point wasn't to say do away with them now, but rather simply to provide more backgrounding.

[grantcart]

21. tks

[Laelth]

5. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[grantcart]

11. thanks

[DrToast]

6. The Democrats aren't truly serious about governing until they end the filibuster

I hope there is grassroots pressure to kill it at the start of the next term.

The structure of the Senate is already screwed up. Allowing for a filibuster on top of it is completely ridiculous.

[grantcart]

7. agreed

Democrats brought it in - they should get rid of it.

[grantcart]

10. kick

[TheKentuckian]

12. I fully support the hybrid nuclear option and I bet it is blow back proof

Keep the practice BUT make them actually have to do it and if forced we'd live under the same rules when and if our turn came.

In order to stop the votes those against must hold the floor or yield to a vote. Bust out the dictionaries, bring your coolers, and get your depends on or a catheter if you are really serious.

[davidpdx]

14. TK, that's very very true

At some point we are going to lose the majorities as well as the WH. It may be 10 years down the road, but it will happen as the pendulum will swing back the other way eventually. If we change the rules now, we have to be prepared to play by them then. That could mean Republicans would start gutting programs and passing other bad pieces of legislation similar to the 2001-2006 period.

[grantcart]

16. At some point you have to actually stand for making this Republic more democratic.

The same arguments could have been made about changing the selection of Senators from state legislatures to direct votes.


It has always been acknowledged that the US Senate is comprised not to advance any political principle but for political compromise

In Federalist No. 62, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” openly admitted that the equal suffrage in the Senate was a compromise, a “lesser evil,” and not born out of any political theory. “t is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but ‘of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.’“

Even Gunning Bedford of Delaware admitted that he only favored equal representation because it advanced the interests of his own state. "Can it be expected that the small states will act from pure disinterestedness? Are we to act with greater purity than the rest of mankind?" (Sizing Up the Senate, 33)

If we advance the general principle of democracy we cannot be faulted and should not worry that some days it may not break our way.

In any case the minority will still have exceptional powers, and greater reperesentation than they did in 1789. At that time rural states could defeat a measure with 30% of the population, with the filibuster that number is 10%, without it it would still be 17% of the population.

This has been exaggerated with the additional power of lobbyists.

I think it is reasonable to ask this question "We stand as the beneficiaries of reformists who have continued to make our system of government more democratic and more responsible to the will of the people, what actions have we taken to do the same for those that come after us?"

We should also ask how many more important pieces of legislation will be lost because if the intransigence of the minority and our lack of courage in striping away archaic rules requiring super majorities.

If the use of filibuster had not become so frequently abused then it would not be an issue. The minority only has itself to blame for its unreasonableness.

[grantcart]

17. agreed

[DrToast]

18. Honestly, that's just as silly

Just get rid of the damn thing all together. It's not very dignified to see lawmakers reading out of a cookbook in an attempt to kill legislation.

[grantcart]

19. exactly

[davidpdx]

15. Great information Grant

A nice historical overview of the fillibuster and how it might be overcome if the Dem leadership gets some spine. I'm just worried if it is overturned or changed when we become the minority party (down the road) it will screw us.

[grantcart]

22. tks

[grantcart]

23. kick