This diary was developed from a comment I posted in Laura Clawson’s excellent article on irresponsible statements made by Senate Republicans after the most recent mass casualty event involving firearms. In this diary, I share not only some reasons why a great many of us find the republican position on that particular issue indefensible, but I also explain why resolving this issue like almost all other issues requires eliminating the filibuster. Senator Manchin’s reason that he believes the filibuster must be preserved is that he believes that without the filibuster, the minority party will be ignored and be unable to impact legislation. However, there is no real danger of this occurring unless the minority party chooses to hold a position which less than 40% of the electorate supports . This is an unwarranted concern. I share what the real concern actually is.
.*********************************************************************************
A Cliff Notes guide or relatively succinct summary of this essay is : Joe Manchin supports the filibuster because he believes that without the filibuster, the minority party would be shut out of the legislative process. However, due to gerrymandering, the concentration of democratic voters in urban big cities, and the way that the composition of the US Senate is determined, republicans are already overrepresented in Congress and the only way that they get shut out of the legislative process is if they adopt extremist positions. Hence, the republicans don’t need it. And it doesn’t help the Democratic Party when we are in the minority for several reasons: (1) Republicans already struggle to pass legislation when they are in the majority anyway (2) if they were really committed to some bill and it was blocked by a filibuster but otherwise would pass, then they would eliminate the filibuster (3) if republicans do pass awful unpopular legislation, then there would be voter backlash in the next election (4) if it exists while we are in the minority, then it exists while we are in the majority and that means that on any and every important agenda item 41 or more Senate Republicans will stop our bills from passing with a filibuster and that will harm us electorally by taking away the incentive of our voters to show up at the polls. Furthermore, we can’t pass our democracy bills with the filibuster in place and these bills are essential for the health of our democracy. The 253 voter suppression bills republicans have in play across the country must be countered by our democracy bills. Voter suppression laws that are already in place also help prevent republicans from being shut out of the legislative process even without the filibuster. Since the Republican Party doesn’t need the filibuster to avoid being shut out of the legislative process and it doesn’t help our Democratic Party, it should be eliminated and our democracy bills must be passed.
*********************************************************************************
.
.
Republicans are so damn callous. 530,000 Americans died from the novel coronavirus, the overwhelming majority needlessly because of Congressional Republicans and the maniac. The same thing is occurring in their opposition to common sense gun reform. If it was not obvious otherwise and it certainly should be to any sentient being, looking at other countries makes it obvious how to greatly reduce the number of deaths from firearms. Let’s pretend that people who want to carry firearms are in a well regulated militia. They aren’t and the 2nd amendment knows nothing of a right to bear arms if you’re not part of a well regulated militia, but whatever. If the 2nd amendment means zero restrictions can be placed upon ownership of firearms, then it means things that nobody believe: a 2 year old can own an Uzi or an AR-15 or an RPG or even a hydrogen bomb . Anybody ever argue for the right of a 2 year old to own these things? I have never heard such an argument and that presumably means it is not believed or somebody somewhere would make that argument.
.
.
.
Suppose one can compromise with some of these people. Handguns are allowed . Limits on magazines and banning automatic weapons and zero ways around background checks would greatly reduce the number of gun related deaths. Require insurance. These are views that even a majority of republicans and well north of two thirds of the electorate support.
.
.
.
This highlights the fundamental problem this country has. Our constitution allows a minority of the electorate, not even close to a plurality, to control the federal government. That is the problem. And the filibuster takes that humongous mistake and exacerbates it . Gerrymandering and concentration of our voters in urban areas means that the Democratic Party must win the popular vote by between four and six percent to control the US House of Representatives. If you add up all of the votes of all of the Democratic Party candidates for US SENATE in general elections in all cohorts and you compare that to republican counterparts, then you find that our party’s candidates won 27 million more votes than the republicans even though the US Senate is divided 50-50. That’s obviously because every state regardless of population has 2 US Senators representing it. Thus, we have states like Wyoming and Idaho each with a population of 1 million people and the state of California with a population of 40 million people both have the same number of US Senators which is absolutely fucking absurd. President Joe Biden did win the popular vote by 7 million votes but he only won the electoral college by 40,000 votes. Republican candidates for president have only won the popular vote one time in the last eight elections. Yet they have held the White House for three terms and appointed a majority of Supreme Court justices.
.
.
.
Wisdom can be learned mostly from experience as a member of a marginalized community or a race or gender who has experienced discrimination and it can theoretically be learned from a great deal of education often found in an advanced degree, a master’s degree or a doctorate. It can also in theory be learned by exposure and friendships between members of different communities. Good people hate and oppose bigotry and discrimination even outside of these advantages. However, only a third of Americans seem to have earned even so much as a 4 year bachelor’s degree. While our country is thankfully becoming more diverse, it is doing so in a painfully slow manner. There is this gigantic danger in allowing a relatively small minority of voters who are not close to a plurality to control the composition of the federal government. There are a distressingly large number of Americans who believe all sorts of false conspiracy theories and are committed to bigotry. That’s one danger of allowing a relatively small percentage of the electorate to control the composition of the federal government.
.
.
.
This is why we can’t have nice things. At the very least , a plurality ought to be required to control the composition of the federal government. Failing that and that is a monumental moral failure, we should not compound the error by allowing 41 senators representing a third of the population of the country to stop any and all legislation supported by well beyond a majority of the electorate sometimes more than 60%. Debate in theory is fine; unlimited debate as a tactic to allow a third of the voters and a rump minority political party to prevent needed legislation supported by well more than a majority of the electorate to at least get an up or down vote and preferably to pass is unacceptable. The republican minority party and a minority of voters already are over represented in the federal government and their voices and views are heard and given deference well beyond their numbers. Therefore, we are in no danger whatsoever of the minority party being excluded from participating in creating compromise moderate legislation. What we are in danger of is having 35% of the country’s voters, the least diverse and most uneducated, preventing vital, needed legislation to protect our democracy and the people who reside within our borders. This decimates the argument that King Manchin says he believes justifies the filibuster.
.
.
.
If the filibuster is not eliminated, then the 35% to 42% of country that opposes common sense gun reform legislation will be successful in stopping it using the republican party as their vehicle. Even though such 70% of voters support it including a majority of republicans, the republican party has more than 40 US Senators who will filibuster common sense gun reform legislation that includes ban automatic weapons / assault weapons. Another link shows that 2/3 of Americans support such a ban .
.
.
.
This is not an anomaly. All fifty Senate Republicans voted against the American Rescue Plan which was supported by 75% of American voters. Gerrymandering which has mostly been done by republicans made it so that most House Republicans are in very, very conservative districts. They have drawn congressional districts to their advantage to sink the votes of people of color. Therefore, they have left themselves with only one option: appeal to extremist, bigots who believe conspiracy theories. The same thing naturally occurs with Senate Republicans since most Senate Republicans represent conservative to very conservative states which are full of extremist bigots who believe conspiracy theories. They know that they can’t try to win a lot of republican votes and a lot of votes from voters who are democrats because the policy and other differences between the two groups is too great. They also know that their extremism has been too pronounced for very many voters in the democratic party to choose them over Democratic Party candidates. They know that despite the maniac’s apathy / sociopathy and how it incited the insurrection, the maniac still has strong approval ratings from republican voters who are apparently no better than the maniac since they approve of it. They know that if they become reasonable and moderate, then the maniac will support a primary challenger and the maniac’s endorsement of that primary challenger will be followed by the primary challenger defeating them in the primary because the vast majority of republican voters will do whatever the maniac tells them. Thus, republicans in Congress are driven to become extremist bigots who support very unpopular policies and oppose popular policies since the only people who might vote for them are extremist bigots . Again, this is why there will be easily be at least 41 Senate Republicans who will filibuster all of our bills that promote popular policies, never vote for cloture for these bills, and thus, will never let them get an up or down vote. House Republicans are even more extreme. An inverted filibuster alone likely isn’t going to stop Senate Republicans from preventing popular bills supported by a strong majority of voters from getting an up or down vote.
.
.
.
At a minimum, this must be supported by a carved out exception to the filibuster for our democracy bills which will help pressure republicans in Congress to return to more moderate and responsible positions. Again, Joe Manchin says that the reason he supports the filibuster is that he is afraid that without the filibuster the minority party will be shut out of the legislative process and will not be able to influence legislation. However, since the Republican Party has forced itself into a cycle of ever increasing extremism and bigotry, then it is likely with a responsible yet progressive and productive Democratic Party that the Republican Party will be in the minority and the Democratic Party will support popular policies. In this situation, the minority party will still have a huge influence, an outsized influence, upon legislation. This is true because there are many small very conservative states. Due to their extremism, if the number of very republican conservative senators was based upon the proportion of support for very conservative policies by the electorate and the number of moderate republican senators was based upon the proportion of support for more moderate republican policies and so on, then there would be far fewer extremist Senate Republicans.
.
.
.
Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida are very conservative states and they alone yield forty six (46) very, very conservative Senate Republicans. At times, one or two US Senators who caucus with the Democratic Party will win a state or two which will be offset by one or two US Senators who caucus with the Republican Party and who represent states which tend to support the Democratic Party candidates. Eventually political gravity will win out and the party whose candidates represent states as US Senators will match which party the state votes for at the presidential level. Somehow a number of Senate Republicans who represent more moderate states are able to get away with being more conservative than their state is (Ron Johnson and Susan Collins and the retiring Pat Toomey come to mind). North Carolina is only won by the Republican Party candidates for US Senate by a handful of points usually and democrats can and do win statewide election there although successful Democratic Party candidates for federal office tend to be much more rare. We have several Senate Democrats who represent states which barely went blue on the presidential level and / or at the US Senate level (Arizona and Georgia and the Upper Midwest states at times). The states so represented are Arizona and Georgia. Senator Tester and Senator Brown represent red states. In any event, this is why Senate Republicans are likely to be able to come up with at least 41 Senators who will vote to continue the filibuster even if an inverted filibuster is passed. There are almost always in the modern political era red states which are represented by more than 41 US Senators and these states are significantly more conservative than the country as a whole.
.
.
.
There are not states represented by 50 US Senators which are significantly more progressive than the nation as whole. States which are often relatively close at the presidential level are Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia. At times, New Hampshire can be close at the presidential level as well. Therefore, we will count it as well. This gives us 14 US Senators representing these states. We already had states which in theory should produce 46 conservative republican senators. This means that there are about 20 states which will produce 40 more progressive US Senators. Therefore, it is very hard to envision Manchin’s concern about the minority party being ignored in legislation coming to pass. Democrats will tend to be underrepresented in the US Senate. Republicans will be overrepresented in the US Senate given their extremism (ie. if we just considered their extremism and how out of touch their positions are, we would predict that there would be fewer Senate Republicans if representation were proportional to the popularity of ideology within the electorate) . In general, this situation will naturally favor creating an equilibrium in which moderates will be required to pass legislation. Certainly, the Republican Party is in no danger of being underrepresented (and thus shut out) in legislation unless they all choose to be extremist on whatever issue even without the filibuster. And the filibuster hurts the Democratic Party since again there are 23 states which lean heavily conservative at the presidential level. There will be some states which are red at the presidential level but are temporarily represented by Senate Democrats (Senator Tester and Senator Brown) and there are some states which are blue at the presidential level (barely) but are represented by Senate Republicans. The point is that republicans are already able to influence the legislative process to a greater extent than the popularity of their views would suggest because of how the composition of the Senate is determined ; when we count states based upon how they vote at the presidential level and compare that to the percentage of the vote for each party’s presidential candidate, then the republican party is overrepresented. Their extremism in ideology contrasted with the support for popular policies by Congressional Democrats ought to result in a significant advantage for our Democratic Party. It doesn’t because of how the composition of the US Senate is determined. . .
.
Thus, there is no danger that the minority Republican Party will be shut out of the legislative making process unless they take themselves out of it by refusing to compromise on policies that 60% to 70% of the electorate back because of gerrymandering and because of how the composition of the US Senate is determined. Furthermore, the electoral college gives republican presidential candidates a much greater chance than they would have if it were based upon the popular vote. Given the danger of a republican president, Congressional Democrats are also to some extent encouraged to stay within the mainstream of political thought. The republican minority is already overrepresented in the power they hold on the federal government which makes it unlikely that they will be shut out of the legislative process unless they take themselves out of it by opposing very popular legislation or supporting very unpopular legislation. They don’t need the filibuster to be protected to being shut out of the legislative process; gerrymandering and how the composition of the US Senate is determined prevent this. All they need do is avoid political extremism.
.
.
.
That leaves the Democratic Party and the filibuster. On balance, the filibuster hurts our Democratic Party. The damage done by republicans putting on a filibuster which prevents Congressional Democrats from passing popular legislation supported by 60 % or more of the electorate is greater than the damage done by republicans being able to ignore Senate Democrats when they are in the minority because there is no filibuster. This is true for several reasons. First, historically due to extremism, Congressional Republicans have trouble passing any legislation. The only significant legislation that they passed under the maniac was its tax cuts for the wealthy. Second, Senate Republicans would eliminate the filibuster if they were intent and unified enough on any policy that at least 41 Senate Democrats opposed and were filibustering. Third, if republicans do pass very unpopular legislation due to the lack of a filibuster, then there will be consequences electorally in the next election. Right now, Joe Manchin is preventing Congressional Republicans from receiving the consequences of their extremism. Fourth, if Senate Democrats allow a filibuster to prevent them from passing the legislation that the voters elected them to pass, then they will lose power in the following election because the voters who voted for them will feel that there is no point to voting. So, the republicans don’t need the filibuster to prevent them from being shut out of the legislative process and the filibuster hurts Congressional Democrats more than it helps them. They don’t need the filibuster and it hurts our Democratic Party.
.
.
.
This is all horrendous enough, but of course the Republican Party still isn’t satisfied. They worsen what is already an incomprehensible state of affairs by intentionally trying to create a new Jim Crow era. Why ? Despite already being far over represented beyond their numbers, they have adopted such unpopular and discriminatory policies that even with the advantages they have, they understand that they still must disenfranchise voters of colors to obtain and retain power. They have more than 250 voter suppression bills in play across the country.
.
.
.
Nothing is more important than protecting the vote and preventing voter suppression. Democracy itself depends upon this. It is an essential part of democracy. Without protecting the vote and preventing voter suppression, then there is no accountability for politicians who do not reflect the political preferences of their state or congressional district. With voter suppression, politicians who push through unpopular legislation face no consequences. That encourages republicans to become more extreme. Extending the franchise and stopping voter suppression, in theory, ought to be supported by members of both parties. Those who oppose it are opposing democracy because they are opposing allowing voters holding them accountable.
.
.
.
All of this is why voting rights legislation like the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act must pass in order for us to make progress on anything else like needed gun reform legislation. Yet, there is no chance for these bills to get ten republicans to support it to prevent a filibuster. There are even 41 Senate Republicans to sustain an inverted filibuster. The only way that either of these bills pass is if either an exception for democracy legislation is passed so that it cannot be filibustered or the filibuster is eliminated. It was already shown that republicans don't need the filibuster to prevent themselves from being shut out of the legislative process and that the filibuster hurts the Democratic Party more than it would help the Democratic Party if it were in the minority. So, the real solution is to eliminate the filibuster. Failing that and it is a moral failure, then we need to at least carve out an exception so that democracy bills cannot be filibustered and we need to put an inverted filibuster in place. If these democracy bills don’t pass, we not only won’t be able to pass any other needed legislation but we very well may lose control of the US Senate in the 2022 elections.
Wednesday, Mar 24, 2021 · 3:19:51 PM +00:00 · Dem
One poster (might be the only person in the country who follows politics and isn’t an extremist republican to believe this) wrote that since 100% even spread of voters (apparently what is meant is that everywhere the proportion of the electorate locally is the exact same as the proportion of the electorate nationally) and zero gerrymandering would result in the minority party having zero percent representation, that treating gerrymandering and concentration of voters as if they are real problems is a game. Of course, this is a ludicrous position which is why it is the political equivalent of finding a unicorn. First, who shows up at the polls to vote varies. Second, the candidates and the political parties which found themselves in such a position would quickly change their political position. Third, outside of the extreme (the 100% straw man suggested) , this would not be the case. Gerrymandering is done to reduce the power of the vote of voters of color, especially the vote of African American voters. They will draw congressional districts so that they encompass as close to all African Americans in the area as they can. They know that they will lose that congressional district. However, they then are able to configure the other congressional districts so that there are multiple republican districts which are safe yet take in as many votes of democrats as they can safely do. Stacey Abrams doesn’t agree with the point of view of the poster, neither does President Barack Obama nor does former Attorney General Eric Holder nor does republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger . Republicans clearly believe it is helpful or they would not have chosen to do it with great effect.
If we look at individual states, we frequently find that even though democrats have an easier time winning statewide elections, republicans will dominate both the state legislature and the number of US Representatives from the state. It is hard to deny this when we look at Upper Midwest states like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s state assembly is composed of sixty republicans and thirty eight democrats. Yet, President Biden won Wisconsin and a democrat won the gubernatorial election (Tony Evers). The Wisconsin state senate is similar. There are twenty republicans and twelve democrats. In the lower chamber of the state legislature of Pennsylvania, republicans hold 111 seats and democrats only hold 92. In the upper chamber, republicans hold a 28 to 21 advantage. In a more blue state, Michigan, republicans hold a twenty two to sixteen advantage in the state senate and a fifty eight to fifty two advantage in the lower chamber, the state House of Representatives.
The Atlantic wrote about this very real problem.
Biden won all of the 20 largest cities in America. He dominated on the coasts, racking up more than 80 percent of the vote in Manhattan, Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. He won metro Atlanta by about 800,000 votes and took the four major metro areas of Texas—Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin—by more than 900,000 votes.
Although Democrats could potentially even out their Electoral College disadvantage by making big southern states like Texas competitive, they look truly doomed in the Senate, which disproportionately empowers rural white populations that overwhelmingly vote Republican. The GOP currently holds both Senate seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Those 11 states have 22 senators who collectively represent fewer people than the population of California, which has two Senate seats. (Democrats have their own small-state layups, but not as many.)
“We have an election system that makes it basically impossible for Democrats’ current coalition to ever wield legislative power,” the polling analyst David Shor told Politico. That sounds a bit lugubrious, but consider this: In the 2018 midterms, Democratic Senate candidates won 18 million more votes than Republicans nationwide, and the party still lost two net Senate seats.One analysis of Census Bureau data projected that by 2040, roughly half of the population will be represented by 16 senators; the other, more rural half will have 84 senators at their disposal.
Wednesday, Mar 24, 2021 · 4:08:58 PM +00:00 · Dem
A Cliff Notes guide or relatively succinct summary for this essay is : Joe Manchin supports the filibuster because he believes that without the filibuster, the minority party would be shut out of the legislative process. However, due to gerrymandering, the concentration of democratic voters in urban big cities, and the way that the composition of the US Senate is determined, republicans are already overrepresented in Congress and the only way that they get shut out of the legislative process is if they adopt extremist positions. Hence, the republicans don’t need it. And it doesn’t help the Democratic Party when we are in the minority for several reasons: (1) Republicans already struggle to pass legislation when they are in the majority anyway (2) if they were really committed to some bill and it was blocked by a filibuster but otherwise would pass, then they would eliminate the filibuster (3) if republicans do pass awful unpopular legislation, then there would be voter backlash in the next election (4) if it exists while we are in the minority, then it exists while we are in the majority and that means that on any and every important agenda item 41 or more Senate Republicans will stop our bills from passing with a filibuster and that will harm us electorally by taking away the incentive of our voters to show up at the polls. Furthermore, we can’t pass our democracy bills with the filibuster in place and these bills are essential for the health of our democracy. The 253 voter suppression bills republicans have in play across the country must be countered by our democracy bills. Voter suppression laws that are already in place also help prevent republicans from being shut out of the legislative process even without the filibuster. Since the Republican Party doesn’t need the filibuster to avoid being shut out of the legislative process and it doesn’t help our Democratic Party, it should be eliminated and our democracy bills must be passed.
Wednesday, Mar 24, 2021 · 6:01:57 PM +00:00
·
Dem
I know this is an extremely long diary. I tried to break it up by emphasizing the most important points using bolding, italicization and underlining as well as by paragraphs. I employed details and argumentation to support the main points of the diary. I didn’t want to make claims or put forth propositions without supporting them. I believe that many of the details given and arguments made help support the thesis of the diary.
I am likely to use this diary as I have other reference works that I have written at Daily Kos. I tend to provide documentation and arguments and details to support a thesis on a topic I consider important in a reference diary . Then, I take only the most important points from the reference diary and greatly shorten it and create a more concise, succinct diary which is more likely to gain a wider readership while linking to the reference in case others want more information on the topic or they contest the claims.
Thus, you are likely to see a much shorter diary emerge out of this which will simply link to this diary in case a reader of that shorter diary wants more information.
I can’t quite apologize for the length of the diary because it is intentional. It is intended to serve as a reference for me and for others when I write on the topic in the future in case readers of a future, much shorter and succinct edition of this diary want more information or want to see more evidence of the claims made. I didn’t make it long for its own sake. Repeated themes are discussed or supported in different ways. Still, I do regret upsetting readers by the length of the diary. For them, I did write a succinct summary of the diary. In addition, they may be happy to learn that I will be writing a far shorter edition of this diary in the future. Thank you for your patience.