In the end of majority rule?, E. J. Dionne's column in today's Washington Post, we read
The filibuster makes matters worse. It’s theoretically possible for 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the population to block pretty much anything.
This is a product of the Constitutional provision of equal representation of the states in the U. S. Senate. Only in theory, each of those Senators could have been elected with just over 50% of those who actually voted. And the proportion of those age and otherwise elegible to vote is usually less than 60% (
even in Presidential years it has rarely topped 60%), that would be less than 60% of 11%, and of that less than 1/2 in each state.
In other words, Senators elected by less than 3% of the eligible voters in the United States have the power to prevent things from getting done.
All because of the filibuster.
In theory.
But let's raise the percentage but make it worse, at least in theory.
If one scrolls down here< one can find the states rank-ordered by population. Here are they are, from 1 through 51 (including DC):
01 California
02 Texas
03 New York
04 Florida
05 Pennsylvania
06 Illinois
07 Ohio
08 Georgia
09 North Carolina
10 Virginia
11 Michigan
12 New Jersey
13 Washington
14 Massachusetts
15 Arizona
16 Maryland
17 Tennessee
18 Indiana
19 Wisconsin
20 Colorado
21 Missouri
22 Minnesota
23 South Carolina
24 Kentucky
25 Alabama
26 Connecticut
27 Nevada
28 Oregon
29 Louisiana
30 Iowa
31 Oklahoma
31 Mississippi
32 Arkansas
33 Kansas
34 Utah
35 Nevada
36 New Mexico
37 West Virginia
38 Nebraska
39 Idaho
40 Hawaii
41 Maine
42 New Hampshire
43 Rhode Island
44 Montana
45 Delaware
46 South Dakota
47 Alaska
48 North Dakota
49 Vermont
— District of Columbia
50 Wyoming
From that list I am going to remove DC and every state that voted for Obama either time (correction from original version) and we get this list (with number of current electoral votes after each)
02 TX 38
08 GA 16
15 AZ 11
17 TN 11
21 MO 10
23 SC 9
24 KY 8
25 AL 9
29 LA 8
31 OK 7
31 MS 6
32 AR 6
33 KS 6
34 UT 6
37 WV 5
38 NE 5
39 ID 4
44 MT 3
46 SD 3
47 AK 3
48 ND 3
50 WY 3
I now have 22 states, with 42 Senators, one more than necessary to maintain a filibuster. Each of these states voted against Obama twice.
If you were to place those states on a map, you would have nothing from the Great Lakes, from Maine down through NC, from the West Coast, or from the Hispanic belt of NV, NM, CO, or do you have FL. Those states are in the mountains except for the Hispanic states, the Great Plains, the Appalachian belt (which includes MO and AR), and a few other places.
They represent a population greater than the >11% of which Dionne writes, but perhaps it makes the point just as clear.
Imagine a scenario where Obama wins every state and DC handily, but loses these states narrowly. Imagine, for example, a popular vote margin in excess of 10%. You could have a scenario where a solid or even decisive presidential win is thwarted by senators from states the President lost narrowly against the overwhelming will of the American people.
Or look at it different.
Take just the bottom 13 of these states, from OK down. They have the power to as states to block a constitutional amendment that the rest of the country very much wants, say either overturning Citizens United directly and/or voting to define a person under the Constitution as a living, breathing human being (sorry folks, not an embryo or a blastocyst), or perhaps to restore the intent of the 2nd Amendment as interpret by Supreme Courts until the Heller case.
in short, our federal system as currently constructed and practice has a propensity for gridlock built in.
We may not be able to address the issue of constitutional amendments easily because of the basic structure of the constitutional framework.
But we sure as hell can address the immediate problem, which is the filibuster, which is not in the Constitution, and by implication should not be in the Senate: although the Constitution allows each chamber of Congress to set its own rules, it is quite specific on when super-majorities are needed:
- removal of a Representative or a Senator by the body to which he belongs
- ratification of a treaty
- approval of a constitutional amendment to be sent to the states for ratification
- removal of a President or other official in an impeachment trial by the President
At least by implication, the Founders had no intent of allowing blocking by an action such as the filibuster. They thought they had provided enough protection via equal representation.
It is time to eliminate the filibuster.
Just remember
a filibuster in theory could be sustained by senators elected by less than 3% of the voters.
In stark opposition to the clearly expressed will of the American people through the elective process.