@kevcvs57said Getting rid of the filibuster isn’t going to foster honest debate your whole congressional system needs ripped up and reconstituted into an actual democracy.
The senate is the least democratic part of the US system it needs to go completely or be reduced to a rubber stamping and debating chamber rather than a partisan road block or worse yet an undemocratic steamroller.
In reality, it's not the GOP that is filibustering. It's every Senator affiliated with the GOP that is filibustering. They should all have to publicly explain why.
As a responsibility of the job, every Senator should be required to attend a monthly televised interview (similar to a press conference, but with fewer people) during which they are questioned by a bipartisan group about their voting decisions and rationale. No grandstanding, no leading questions, clear answers. Put them all on the record.
@kevcvs57said Yes I do it’s so easy to Google the meaning of ‘median’ I wouldn’t be surprised if it had the same root as medium you retard.
What your favourite right wing legal eagle is saying is that his median voter is a guy who does not believe in a woman’s right to choose, if that’s the case then the US is so far to the right Europe is going to be flooded with liberal refugees.
That ...[text shortened]... . You right wing Americans appear to be refining terms like left and right not to mention democracy.
@kevcvs57said Getting rid of the filibuster isn’t going to foster honest debate your whole congressional system needs ripped up and reconstituted into an actual democracy.
The senate is the least democratic part of the US system it needs to go completely or be reduced to a rubber stamping and debating chamber rather than a partisan road block or worse yet an undemocratic steamroller.
True, the Senate is anti-democratic and even more so than it was in 1787 when the difference in population between the smallest State and the largest State was about 1:13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census) whereas now it is about 1:70 (https://worldpopulationreview.com/states). Breaking some of the bigger States up would be the most equitable way to address that problem and would be Constitutional (see Article IV, Section 3).
The filibuster itself is an unconstitutional measure which fundamentally alters the US system by adding an extramajority requirement to Senate votes on routine legislative matters. The Framers knew when to require an extramajority vote in Congress and did for certain matters (treaties, vetoes, etc. etc.) but not for routine bills.
I have been making this argument since I've been on this Forum regardless of whether the Senate had a Republican or Democratic majority in case anyone is wondering.
In my lifetime, I have seen multiple calls for change in three government procedures, never any success:
Get rid of the filibuster; end the electoral college system; fix the loopholes in the tax laws.
@sh76said I said the median SENATOR, not the median voter.
I meant the median voter in the senate sorry for the confusion, but if your correct how far out of step is the median voter in the senate with the median voter in the country.
This is what you get when you allow Mississippi the same number of seats as New York or California.
The senate is not a democratic reflection of the will of the people.
@no1maraudersaid True, the Senate is anti-democratic and even more so than it was in 1787 when the difference in population between the smallest State and the largest State was about 1:13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census) whereas now it is about 1:70 (https://worldpopulationreview.com/states). Breaking some of the bigger States up would be the most equitable way to ...[text shortened]... egardless of whether the Senate had a Republican or Democratic majority in case anyone is wondering.
My worry with ditching the filibuster without reforming the state representation aspect of the senate could lead to a minority shoving some really extreme legislation down the throats of the majority.
Our House of Lords which on some historical level I equate with the Senate is not democratic at all in that it is unelected but it can serve a useful purpose as a debating chamber where the more controversial legislation can be scrutinised and amended before being sent back to the House of Commons which I equate to the House of Representatives, ultimately the House of Commons can push its legislation through but not without public scrutiny.
@wildgrasssaid In reality, it's not the GOP that is filibustering. It's every Senator affiliated with the GOP that is filibustering.
Same difference.
Sure, every single one of them is individually responsible... but if it's every one or nearly every one of them, it's clearly also party policy, and the party is responsible as well. As are the people who vote for that party.
@kevcvs57said I meant the median voter in the senate sorry for the confusion, but if your correct how far out of step is the median voter in the senate with the median voter in the country.
This is what you get when you allow Mississippi the same number of seats as New York or California.
The senate is not a democratic reflection of the will of the people.
I don't think Joe Manchin is very far out of step with the median voter in the country.
@kevcvs57said My worry with ditching the filibuster without reforming the state representation aspect of the senate could lead to a minority shoving some really extreme legislation down the throats of the majority.
Our House of Lords which on some historical level I equate with the Senate is not democratic at all in that it is unelected but it can serve a useful purpose as a debating cha ...[text shortened]... s, ultimately the House of Commons can push its legislation through but not without public scrutiny.
The State representation aspect cannot be changed without a new Constitution whereas the filibuster can be ended with a simple majority vote in the Senate.
Why the filibuster should be nuked
13 May '22 17:491 edit
Back to Top