The Filibuster II

PVW said:

The Senate is, by design, anti-majoritarian, privileging less populated states over more populated ones. Currently that basic design also aligns with our partisan divisions, which greatly exacerbates this, but even if our political coalitions change over time the basic anti-majoritarian design of the Senate remains.

....

I know we all say it's by design, but it's highly doubtful that if the designers had a crystal ball to see what a mess it had become, that they would have designed it this way. They would have looked at the disparity between CA and WY said WTF did we do?

My only point being is to not give too much weight to the "by design" thing.

Anyway, all of this built-in anti-majoritarianism makes me baffled that anyone would want to keep the filibuster so as to put anti-majoritarianism on steroids with a testosterone chaser. It's masochistic.

Does any other country knee-cap its democracy this way?

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

The Senate is, by design, anti-majoritarian, privileging less populated states over more populated ones. Currently that basic design also aligns with our partisan divisions, which greatly exacerbates this, but even if our political coalitions change over time the basic anti-majoritarian design of the Senate remains.

....

I know we all say it's by design, but it's highly doubtful that if the designers had a crystal ball to see what a mess it had become, that they would have designed it this way. They would have looked at the disparity between CA and WY said WTF did we do?

My only point being is to not give too much weight to the "by design" thing.

Anyway, all of this built-in anti-majoritarianism makes me baffled that anyone would want to keep the filibuster so as to put anti-majoritarianism on steroids with a testosterone chaser. It's masochistic.

Does any other country knee-cap its democracy this way?

 Delaware will always be disproportionately overrepresented vs California, barring a constitutional amendment. Right now that particular skew doesn't bother most people since both states are reliably of the same party, but it's still anti-majoritarian -- nothing against Delaware, but what makes people in Wilmington so special that they deserve more representation than people in Los Angeles? 

I don't know if there is some magic ratio at which the founders would have balked at, but already at the beginning there was a wide disparity between big and small states, and they opted for the "1 state 2 votes" design. As an advocate of "one person one vote" I think this was a mistake, but one I don't see as likely to be corrected soon, if ever. Given that, some mechanism that ensures a future political coalition of voters represented by senators from states like NY, CA, FL and TX can push back against a coalition with fewer voters but more senators from states like DE, RI, WY, and AK seems prudent.

Of course, if I had a magic wand I'd just eliminate the Senate entirely, expand the House to something like 1000 members, and institute mutli-member districts with ranked-choice voting and electoral districts automatically drawn by an algorithm created and maintained by an independent non-partisan board of software engineers and political scientists. Barring that, I'm not sure a Senate built around giving underpopulated parts of the country extra votes is something I want to see completely unchecked.

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Which, btw, helps the R's because they're stalling the Senate.

If it's a measure that's popular even among Republican voters, like the ARP, I wonder what effect a transparent stalling of action would have on them.

 The public doesn't really seem to care about process stuff. It's hard enough to get them to name their congress person.

 Isn't a big reason for that because process stuff is mainly invisible? Hours, days, and weeks of Republicans visibly on the floor actively stalling popular legislation strikes me as pretty attention-getting.

 possibly I guess. but with today's politics, the only thing the R's care about is the base, as that's where they're vulnerable to be primaried. They could care less about broad public support. Fox will turn the filibusterer into a hero.

Anyway, here's a good piece on how the rules would possibly need to be changed  for a talking filibuster.

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/examination-of-a-potential-talking-filibuster-rule-in-the-senate/

drummerboy said

Does any other country knee-cap its democracy this way?

 I know of at least one that keeps a clutch of super rich old people around who I think can technically override the elected government? I watched a popular Netflix series about it once and still couldn't tell you what, exactly,the point of these old rich people is or what power they actually have, but from what I gather they are considered very important by tabloid news sites and Tucker Carlson.

I have to believe if the Dems don't end the filibuster and pass HR-1, this discussion will be moot.  Voter suppression legislation in the states will keep the Republicans in the majority for decades if they succeed.

and not for nothing, but I also have to believe ending the filibuster is a very good thing when the idea of it has Mitch McConnell squealing like a stuck pig (or turtle).

ml1 said:

I have to believe if the Dems don't end the filibuster and pass HR-1, this discussion will be moot.  Voter suppression legislation in the states will keep the Republicans in the majority for decades if they succeed.

That's what I've been trying to tell jimmurphy. We're facing as existential a threat to democracy as we've ever faced. It's time to pull the plug and stop worrying about what might happen in some non-determined future.

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

I have to believe if the Dems don't end the filibuster and pass HR-1, this discussion will be moot.  Voter suppression legislation in the states will keep the Republicans in the majority for decades if they succeed.

That's what I've been trying to tell jimmurphy. We're facing as existential a threat to democracy as we've ever faced. It's time to pull the plug and stop worrying about what might happen in some non-determined future.

 here's my other thought on this topic.  If the GOP takes the Senate in '22, I am utterly convinced that THEY will then end the filibuster. And even if they don't abolish it, they will scheme to pass all of their pet legislation through budget reconciliation.  The idea that the Republicans actually care about the filibuster on principle is nuts.  They have shown repeatedly over the past quarter century that their one and only principle is to wield the power they have, even if it's hypocritical to do so, and even if it smashes hundreds of years of congressional norms.  The Democrats should do it before the Republicans do.

I just saw a tweet that basically said "McConnell is threatening to block all Democratic action in the Senate in response to not being able to  block all Democratic action in the Senate."

ml1 said:

And even if they don't abolish it, they will scheme to pass all of their pet legislation through budget reconciliation.

Budget reconciliation has its limits, or else Democrats could pass all their pet legislation, too.

ml1 said:

I have to believe if the Dems don't end the filibuster and pass HR-1, this discussion will be moot.  Voter suppression legislation in the states will keep the Republicans in the majority for decades if they succeed.

 I think that even if HR-1 passes (which, to be clear, I'm a big supporter of), the Senate is still likely to be in Republican hands more than 50% of the time, unless and until our geographical divisions cease to line up with our political ones.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

And even if they don't abolish it, they will scheme to pass all of their pet legislation through budget reconciliation.

Budget reconciliation has its limits, or else Democrats could pass all their pet legislation, too.

 it does have its limits, and as I understand it, those limits are determined by the Senate parliamentarian.  Strict adherence to the decisions of the parliamentarian is not required by legislation.  It's a norm that the parties have adhered to.  But a majority of senators could overrule the parliamentarian.  Which means it's something that McConnell would almost certainly do if it suits his purposes.  It seems awfully naive after Merrick Garland that anyone doesn't believe that McConnell is capable of any action that isn't strictly illegal.

ml1 said:

it does have its limits, and as I understand it, those limits are determined by the Senate parliamentarian.

Also, it can be used only once per fiscal year, or twice in a calendar year if the measures for both the current and the next fiscal years are squeezed in.

DaveSchmidt said:

Also, it can be used only once per fiscal year, or twice in a calendar year if the measures for both the current and the next fiscal years are squeezed in.

Once a year is plenty of opportunity to pass legislation that has major impact. 

It sure is. If that had been what you said earlier, I wouldn’t have brought up the limits.

DaveSchmidt said:

It sure is. If that had been what you said earlier, I wouldn’t have brought up the limits.

 how much "pet legislation" do they have?  In the Trump years, they passed a huge tax bill.  And they tried to overturn the ACA.  I don't recall that much else that they considered high priority.

I guess I should have quantified the term.

ml1 said:

how much "pet legislation" do they have? In the Trump years, they passed a huge tax bill. And they tried to overturn the ACA. I don't recall that much else that they considered high priority.

I guess I should have quantified the term.

It does leave me with some confusion. If one-shot reconciliation suffices to get a party’s pet priorities through, what’s the issue with the filibuster?

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

how much "pet legislation" do they have? In the Trump years, they passed a huge tax bill. And they tried to overturn the ACA. I don't recall that much else that they considered high priority.

I guess I should have quantified the term.

It does leave me with some confusion. If one-shot reconciliation suffices to get a party’s pet priorities through, what’s the issue with the filibuster?

how about:

voting rights,

minimum wage,

infrastructure,

voting rights,

reversing the Trump tax cuts

voting rights

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Also, it can be used only once per fiscal year, or twice in a calendar year if the measures for both the current and the next fiscal years are squeezed in.

Once a year is plenty of opportunity to pass legislation that has major impact. 

 no it's not.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

how much "pet legislation" do they have? In the Trump years, they passed a huge tax bill. And they tried to overturn the ACA. I don't recall that much else that they considered high priority.

I guess I should have quantified the term.

It does leave me with some confusion. If one-shot reconciliation suffices to get a party’s pet priorities through, what’s the issue with the filibuster?

it's another example of the asymmetry of the parties.  Republicans are the party of "no" regarding most legislation.  Every so often want to pass a big tax cut, or repeal a Democratic priority.  So using reconciliation has suited them for their priorities.  But Democrats currently have an entire legislative agenda that they are trying to pass and they can't get any bills to the floor with the current filibuster rules. 

If it suited them, Republicans would almost assuredly end the filibuster if they had the majority in the Senate.  Thus far they haven't needed to because reconciliation has been sufficient to suit their purposes.

I don't think the entirety of my comment was all that confusing, but I wrote it in about a minute.  Maybe I need to go through a few drafts before hitting "reply" to make sure I haven't written a sentence that distracts from the larger point. Which is that Mitch McConnell will do anything he pleases, norms of the Senate be damned is not IMHO untrue or unclear.  He can whine about Democrats ending the filibuster, but anyone who's watched him operate knows he'll use any tool at his disposal to ram a bill through the Senate.

PVW said:

 Delaware will always be disproportionately overrepresented vs California, barring a constitutional amendment. 

Article V of the Constitution provides the mechanisms for amending the Constitution and states:

 " no State. without its  Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate".

These were 13 independent Nation-States creating one Nation. Under the Articles of Confederation they were like the European Union.

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Also, it can be used only once per fiscal year, or twice in a calendar year if the measures for both the current and the next fiscal years are squeezed in.

Once a year is plenty of opportunity to pass legislation that has major impact. 

 no it's not.

 you don't think repealing the ACA would have had major impact?  What about the tax cut of 2017?  How about the PATRIOT Act?

It's pretty simple.  The filibuster is a bug to a party that wants to govern (D) whereas it is a feature to a party that has no interest in a functioning government (R).

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Also, it can be used only once per fiscal year, or twice in a calendar year if the measures for both the current and the next fiscal years are squeezed in.

Once a year is plenty of opportunity to pass legislation that has major impact. 

 no it's not.

 you don't think repealing the ACA would have had major impact?  What about the tax cut of 2017?  How about the PATRIOT Act?

I'm just saying it's certainly not enough for today. The Dems have a bigger agenda than one hit and go home.

Also, the Patriot Act wasn't passed under reconciliation was it? It passed with 98 votes in the Senate.

ml1 said:

I don't think the entirety of my comment was all that confusing, but I wrote it in about a minute. Maybe I need to go through a few drafts before hitting "reply" to make sure I haven't written a sentence that distracts from the larger point.

In a discussion, sometimes others will be confused or go astray and have questions, even if it’s their own fault.

Thanks for the reply.

At the state level, there are plenty of examples of activist Republican legislators - not just blocking or rollback actions. I can pretty easily imagine that moving up to the federal level. A push to severely limit reproductive rights wouldn't fall under reconciliation, for instance, but would be major legislation.

PVW said:

A push to severely limit reproductive rights wouldn't fall under reconciliation, for instance, but would be major legislation.

Likewise, as I think DB may have mentioned, voting laws. 

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Also, it can be used only once per fiscal year, or twice in a calendar year if the measures for both the current and the next fiscal years are squeezed in.

Once a year is plenty of opportunity to pass legislation that has major impact. 

 no it's not.

 you don't think repealing the ACA would have had major impact?  What about the tax cut of 2017?  How about the PATRIOT Act?

I'm just saying it's certainly not enough for today. The Dems have a bigger agenda than one hit and go home.

Also, the Patriot Act wasn't passed under reconciliation was it? It passed with 98 votes in the Senate.

 it wasn't. But it was one bill that had major impact on its own. 
But I think my earlier reply addresses your larger point. The Democratic agenda requires a lot of legislation. The typical GOP set of priorities, not so much. 

PVW said:

At the state level, there are plenty of examples of activist Republican legislators - not just blocking or rollback actions. I can pretty easily imagine that moving up to the federal level. A push to severely limit reproductive rights wouldn't fall under reconciliation, for instance, but would be major legislation.

 you don't think if he thought it suited his needs, McConnell wouldn't try to force some kind of alleged budget impact into the bill to claim it qualified for reconciliation? And if he couldn't, that THEN he would abolish the filibuster?
My point is just that McConnell's complaints are disingenuous and should be ignored by Democrats. He would do whatever he needed to do to get a bill through the Senate. 

ml1 said:

PVW said:

At the state level, there are plenty of examples of activist Republican legislators - not just blocking or rollback actions. I can pretty easily imagine that moving up to the federal level. A push to severely limit reproductive rights wouldn't fall under reconciliation, for instance, but would be major legislation.

 you don't think if he thought it suited his needs, McConnell wouldn't try to force some kind of alleged budget impact into the bill to claim it qualified for reconciliation? And if he couldn't, that THEN he would abolish the filibuster?
My point is just that McConnell's complaints are disingenuous and should be ignored by Democrats. He would do whatever he needed to do to get a bill through the Senate. 

 I took the context as being the assertion that the parties are asymmetrical in their legislative goals and that the filibuster therefore helps Republicans but not Democrats. It's true that under Trump their legislative ambitions were mainly obstructionist or focused on taxes, but I don't think that's necessarily true as a general purpose observation -- hence my putting forth an example of the kind of more activist legislative projects I can imagine Republicans pursuing that would be hampered by a Democratic filibuster.

Would McConnell (or a future Republican majority leader) simply abolish the filibuster? I don't know, but the answer isn't obviously "yes" to me.

Would a reformed filibuster of the kind that made it painful for Republicans to oppose HR.1 or Democrats to oppose the effective outlawing of abortion and most birth control be a better situation than we have today? I believe so. I'd like to think that a Democratic Senate majority would pay that cost, and even have a decent chance at successfully blocking such a bill, and that the current Republican minority would have a hard time committing to and sustaining a successful filibuster against a major voting rights bill.