Is the Filibuster actually PROTECTING majority rule?

[bondwooley]

Tim Murphy has an interesting post on Mother Jones that explores a different point of view of the filibuster - at least a different view than the one I have, which basically categorizes the filibuster as a form of cheating any bullying.

Murphy's subject argues that since the Senate's composition does not reflect a proportionate constituency(highly populated states having as many votes as, say, South Dakota), there's no such thing as majority rule in the Senate to begin with:

It's not clear what majority rule means in the context of the Senate. The Senate's one of the most malapportioned legislatures anywhere! On the one hand you can tell the story where a bare majority of the Senate represents a very small proportion of the American population. And then the counterargument is that 41 Senators representing an even smaller portion of the population can block legislation. Either way, the main point is that the Senate is a very malapportioned body...so the ability to muster a majority doesn’t necessarily mean that the national interest is being served.

The full article is here: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/world-without-nuclear-options

What's the DU opinion? Is the filibuster a way for the minority to block the majority? Or since the Senate is not proportionately representative, is it merely a ritual that balances power and opinion?

[MadMaddie]

1. Here's the rub - "If used properly"

<snip>
it merely is a ritual that balances power and opinion?
<snip>

However; as we have seen for the last year in a half if the rule is brutally misused and abused it loses it's value. Due to this abuse it will have to be looked at and modified.

My two cents..

[bondwooley]

2. I know I'm on the same side as you on this concept...

... but I'm curious at to how it could actually be used by either party without the other feeling that it is being misused or abused?

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Senate = House of Lords...U.S. Congress = House of Commons...

It is easy to me.

The Senate is designed to protect Americans from the Tyranny of the majority, a concept that concerned social thinkers at the time the Republic was formed.The idea that 50%+1 person could become a tyrannical regime was very much in their minds.

If the filibuster worked like it supposed to, it is an excellent tool. The Senate Rules for filibuster have created a system that is designed to deadlock, and creates a tyranny of the minority.

[bondwooley]

4. Very clearly stated, but....

... the filibuster wasn't born with the Republic, and evolved through changing Senate rules in the 1800's ...

So are you saying that the Senate rules, including the loophole that became a filibuster, evolved to reflect the ideas of the founding fathers? Having worked in the Senate, I'm skeptical about that! ;)

FYI, not trying to pick an argument ... you seem to know about this and I am honestly interested in the subject.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Filibuster goes back to ancient Rome...

The current U.S. version doesn't require anything but a cloture vote. You declare a filibuster, and dare the other side to find the votes to stop it.

[Bert]

13. Not quite accurate

Unless I am mistaken the filibuster was enacted in this country around the 1920's. I suppose you could say that it was modeled after something like it in Rome but it was hardly set up by our founding fathers. However, our founding fathers created the undemocratic body of the senate and the electoral college(it seems they preffered a dysfunctional government or divided government to a functional but overpowerful one) not to mention slavery and our country for a while was essentially an oligarchy. I will admit I did not know that Rome had something resembling a filibuster and as an amateur student of history(especially roman history) I would like to hear more about it.

[MadMaddie]

6. A note to any lurking Freepers

This is how an intelligent conversation is held, opinions are given, counter arguments are given and during the whole conversation everyone is civil. Perhaps you on the right could learn a thing or two.

[bondwooley]

7. Thank you Madmaddie

Today has been a difficult day with news of a dear friend about to die, a business deal going south and ... Well, this could get boring for people who don't know me. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for your comment and I'm glad that as a newbie to DU my post has your endorsement.

[MadMaddie]

8. I am very sorry to hear about your dear friend

for many of us that have been on DU for years we have been blessed to be there for our fellow DU members who have sufferred losses of family, friends, businesses, homes, pets you name it.

Life is when shared with others is never boring. We may not know each other face to face but we have built an amazing vibrant caring community. Of course we are like a dysfunctinonal family at times but that's expected....

Take care of yourself.

MadMaddie!

[bondwooley]

9. Sincere thank you

I really appreciate your response. A few years ago, my father died. That was expected. 13 days later, my mother died. That was not expected (often married couples do pass around the same time, but may parents had been divorced for 10 years). A cousin of mine came to my emotional rescue during that time, and three weeks later she drove off a cliff and died (the accident was probably complications of a thyroid mis-medication). Then my sister was diagnosed with adenocarcenoma of unknown primary, a very rare cancer, and she passed away 11 months later.

So I guess that's why I'm a bit freaked about my friend who actually needs not only kidneys but a pancreas.

In any event, your note was very important to me, even though I don't know who you are! I greatly appreciate it. And I hope that I'm not giving you more information than you bargained for! ;)

Thanks for being a virtual friend/ear/etc.

[Bert]

10. Short answer is no

The senate itself is a defense against majority rule. Despite all the brainwashing I have been fed in my american education this is why I still believe that the senate is a barrier to progress if you believe in a representative democracy or democratic republic, unless you believe that 150,000 people should have the same voting power as 26 million people. This is probably why no other respectable democracy to my knowledge has anything like it. And the house of lords has no official power to my knowledge, being merely a symbolic figurehead much like their monarch.

So when we then say that 40 senators who may represent less than a third of a country have more power than the other two thirds the simple answer is get rid of it unless your goal is a dysfunctional government.

[bondwooley]

11. I agree with your thinking. Thank you for the commentary n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Dem senators currently represent about 194000000 people, or 62% of the population

based on the July 2009 estimate of 307,000,000.

So, in fact, Democrats actually have less Senatorial power than a fair distribution of Senators to population would call for - if you add the population of states that have full Dem representation and split the population with one Dem senator, you get 62% of the population, while the Dems have only 59% of the Senate votes. In terms of population, the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority.

So much for that little theoretical exercise. Republican filibusters - given this particular historical configuration of the Senate - are minority rule pure and simple, and they are even benefiting from the structure of the Senate to the tune of three votes.