Skip to main content

View Diary: Huh?: GOP threatens to shut down Senate if filibuster reform means they can't shut down Senate (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)
    The Majority, with a 50+1 vote, should be all it takes to pass legislation.
    That is simply an assertion that you provide no argument for, except that many--which is not necessarily even a majority--agree with with you.  Thus, your claim fails even on your own terms.

    As I point out, a simple majority ensures that the maximum number will be dissatisfied.  Why is that a good thing?

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 02:01:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Maximum # dissatisfied? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm not sure I understand how you're calculating. Seems to me there are a lot more unsatisfied if 41 can block the will of 59 through filibuster than if 51 can override the will of 49 through a democratic vote.

      "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

      by NWTerriD on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The filibuster as it is used today is really means the minority rules. Or at least it does when the goal of the minority is to get as little done as possible, which pretty well approximates GOP policy.

        Democrats of course do like to pass laws that help people,  so the filibuster is not as useful for our side as it is for the Republicans. And that's why Democrats (and really anyone who believes in good government), should be in favor of abolishing the filibuster.

        "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

        by Drobin on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 05:43:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

        The steps taken to capture 60 instead of 51 electors will have the following effects:

        1.  The bloc of 51 will be somewhat less satisfied (because they had to give up some of what they wanted)
        2.  The bloc of 9 will be very satisfied (they get exactly what they want)
        3.  The bloc of 40 will be somewhat less dissatisfied (since what they opposed is watered down)

        It then depends on how preferences are distributed.  If they are basically symmetrical around the median elector, then the loss of satisfaction by 40 of the bloc of 51 is balanced out by the greater satisfaction of the bloc of 40.  So there are 9 very satisfied (the swing electors) and 11 a little bit less satisfied (members of the bloc of 51 whose dissatisfaction is not balanced by the increased satisfaction of the bloc of 40).  Hence, greater satisfaction.

        There are lots of other assumptions to be made in this model--like preferences are one-dimensional, satisfaction is not all or nothing, and there are no defectors at the extremes (i.e., no Kuciniches).

        A big problem with the current Congress is that Republicans violate the second assumption--i.e., they appear to be incapable of being partially satisfied.

        Another problem is that the current Congress acts like it has only two electors,  due principally to Republican discipline and extremism, which means that measures can pass only if unanimity is achieved.  That is very different than requiring a modest supermajority.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:16:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  As I pointed out (0+ / 0-)

      that's how the Founders set it.  They thought it through and decided to set 2/3 for treaties, etc.

      The 40 being able to stop legislation means minority rule.  Since the Republicans have abused it to the extent they have, and considering how important it is that legislation get passed, I think it very reasonable to get rid of the filibuster altogether.

      You seem to be very interested in being 'fair' to the minority that is currently abusing the filibuster.  Why?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site