By my count, 34 of the 53 members of the House of Representatives from California are Democrats, while none of the three representatives from Nebraska are Democrats. Yet, in the Senate, the ratio is 2:1. Put another way, California Democrats make up 8% of the House, but only 2% of the Senate, while Nebraska Democrats make up 0% of the House and 1% of the Senate. If the Senate had the same weight of representation as the House, Ben Nelson wouldn’t exist and there would be four Barbara Boxers and four Diane Feinsteins.
The situation is even starker for states like Massachusetts (10 Democrats, 0 Republicans) and New York (27 Democrats, 2 Republicans). That Kent Conrad has the same voting power as Chuck Schumer helps explain why the Senate Dems are not representative of the Democratic Party. This is always true, but it is particularly true in our current situation where the electorate gave the Democrats huge majorities and a president to get big things done. But they can’t be done. At least, they can’t be done the way we want them done. Add the 60 vote threshold for passing legislation, and the Senate is so far right of the party and the country that it’s a bad joke.
But the Founding Fathers didn’t trust the passions of the people. And they had to strike a deal to get the states to join the union. So, we have this undemocratic Senate that is opposed to change. You’d hope small state senators like Ben Nelson would have a little humility about holding up the president’s number one priority item. But it would be a false hope.
I guess it’s wildly unrealistic to hope for a system where the number of senators is based on the population they serve.
yeah, that’s pretty unrealistic.
It’s hard to say what’s unrealistic when you live in a country that’s headed toward failed statehood. We will have radical change at some point, one way or the other.
ya know, when the GOP wanted to abolish the filibuster, I opposed that.
Now… now, I am not so sure. Not so sure at all.
Yeah, every time I grit my teeth at some new stall from the Repubs, and every time someone calls for the nuclear option, I remember the howls of outrage whenever Frist and McConnell threatened to use it when they had the majority. Yes, I think the filibuster is an undemocratic relic that, whatever it’s original purpose might have been, has become a weapon of mass destruction to progressive legislation in the Senate. Yes, deep down I think it ought to be abolished.
But then I think of the Bush/Frist/McConnell years and I’m very, very glad we had it then. And as frustrating as it is right now because 40 Repubs and any one DINO can bring the Senate to a halt, I think we should think very careful before we do away with it.
That’s a one way ticket, and the Dem majority is a very fragile thing. The way things seem to be going right now, we could be looking at a Republican majority in less than two years, albeit a slim one. Would we want 51 Repubs running the Senate with no effective check on what they could do? I don’t think so.
The quickest way out of power is to pass unpopular legislation (something we should be keeping in mind right now). So while there wouldn’t be a filibuster, a GOP controlled senate is still institutionally balanced by majority public opinion as well as our constitution and our judicial branch. That’s why when the GOP controls the Senate, they push through legislation like the Medicare drugs act of 2004, a hugely irresonsible giveaway to big pharma, but also popular with seniors. The real danger is the GOP controlling the executive branch. That’s when the GOP can take action with zero consequences- such as starting wars, responding late to katrina and firing us attorney’s that won’t serve conservative political goals.
I say getting rid of the filibuster is a no-brainer for progressives. Conservative dems would never buy into it though since it would marginalize them.
Since the filibuster does not rest on the Constitution or any other law I know of, the Senate can set the rules any way it wants to. There’s no either/or. For example they could set the number at 55. They could set a time limit when the filibuster automatically expires. They could define legislation where the filibuster does not apply like they do now for budget bills.
The real problem is that the Senate is more interested in its “specialness” than in any legislative priority. How do you force the lawmakers to change their own rules? Have the Senate rules ever been challenged in court, I wonder? That’s the only entity that could change them, and they might not accept even that. We need a Constitutional amendment, but neither the so-called Left nor the teabagger types are interested in getting that far into the fundamental flaws in our system. It’s so much funner to just bitch and bitch when the chickens inevitably come home to roost.
You know, I’m not all that shocked by the difference between the House and the Senate. It’s a basic fact of the US Constitution and we were taught about it in junior high school, which was quite a while ago. We were also taught the reasons for it. It wasn’t so bad because there was also supposed to be a balance between the House and the Senate.
As you note, the real problem is the revised filibuster rule. It greatly exacerbates the imbalance of representation. It needs to be changed.
But the question is, why on earth would you have to FORCE a Democratic congress to change a rule (and that’s all it is, a procedural rule) that cripples their ability to legislate? Just change it back to the way it was before. After all, the Senate can change its own rules.
But the Senate consists of Democrats, Republicans,and Democrats who often vote with Republicans. So aren’t you going to have the same problem with this rule change as with practically everything else? It’s a Catch-22 until there’s a true supermajority.
Founding fathers – sacred.
Complaints about the British before the revolution, little picky details. In fact 25 years after the revolution all of the picky gripes had been instituted and less people voted and property tax qualification went through the roof and imports were crushed by enormous excise taxes.
All it took was for a bunch of jealous upper middle class that couldn’t break the glass ceiling for colonists to cobble together a way to seize power.
That worked out real fine.
The Senate was designed as the obstructionist branch of government and has always lived up to its intention.
Senate = trillions for war and banks and insurance companies. Dimes to the anyone lower than upper middle class.
At least all men are created equal.
Created, yeah. And once the little creations pop out the Constitution and the system it burdened us with start working to make sure that that inconvenience no longer applies.
Plus all the conquered peoples who have no representation at all due to the magical number of 50 stars on the Homeland’s flag…
I’ll ask this again. I know the Democratic Party doesn’t have a purity test, like the Republicans, but shouldn’t there be a minimum standard tools like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Lieberman are held to? Do the other Democrats like having backstabbers as Committee chairs? Especially super important ones?
Purity tests are bad and a big tent is key to majorities in congress. I think the best approach is for the caucus to be subject to a “bargain in good faith” standard for each member’s cloture vote. First, each member is allowed to vote on the legislation however they want. However each member must bargain in good faith for their cloture vote, as in every Senator is allowed to bargain for all sorts of goodies for its cloture vote. Both the Senator in question and Reid should agree in advance on what the polling in the member’s state looks like on a various issue and if its extremely unpopular, its understood that that member will get a lot of goodies thrown at them.
Agreeing in advance to this sort of “good faith” standard is the cost of being allowed to put that “D” next to your name. If you can’t agree to that, fine, best of luck with an “I” or and “R” next to your name.
Let’s not confuse the GOP purity test, which applies to voting on actual legislation, with joining the other side in filibustering core Democratic Party initiatives. “Purity” is not involved here — that’s just whining from the DINOs and the beltway yappers. Unlike Reps, Dems get to vote their
pocketbooksconsciences on the final legislation. They have no right to remain in the caucus if they prevent that legislation from coming to a vote. Period.Ironically enough, if the Senate leadership ever did decide to behave like they cared about democracy or the country, they’d be doing the corporatists a kindness. We’d hear a lot of predictable whining, but the reality is that “my way or the highway” would give them cover. They could point out to their masters that filibustering would lose them their leverage and make them less useful. They could still demonstrate the bang for a buck they deliver by voting against the bill itself. A win-win for everybody. Which makes the whole idea poison to the Democratic Party because it threatens them with looking like fighters for change.
Don’t think it makes sense to blame them for this mess. Their vision of the senate is so far off from what it looks like today- for example they didn’t even provide for direct election by the people of the senators- they truly envisioned it as a House of Lords. That being said, the constitution says nothing about filibusters and 60 vote thresholds to end cloture debate, nor does it mention the arcane procedural rules and the seniority system that makes it such a conservative institution. Given the leverage points Reid and Obama have over Nelson, if Nelson has a veto over any center-left legislation, its because Reid and Obama allow him to have that veto power or at least don’t seem to mind it.
And polling in Nebraska I imagine confirms that most center-left positions are pretty popular in Nebraska. Its not South Carolina or Mississippi. Wishing we had more senators from New York is fun, but our attention should be on reforming our electoral institutions that lead to Senators like Ben Nelson ending up in our caucus in the first place. Some of those institutions are entirely within our control, such as whether rogue senators such as Nelson are able to receive full support from campaign institutions such as the DNC and DSCC. We could also be more ambituos and try to change our campaign finance institutions that draw in ambitious political entrepreneurs such as Ben Nelson who realize given the current systemic incentives, there’s a big future in it for guys like him who are willing to serve conservative and corporate interests. I’m sure there’s an equally ambitious Wellstone-type in Nebraska today realizing that given the way the game is played, he/she’d rather not try to be the next senator from Nebrasks.
Change our electoral institutions so you end up with more Paul Wellstone’s and less Ben Nelson’s. Don’t blame the founding fathers for Ben Nelson- they made a lot of mistakes but this one isn’t on them.
It’s not a matter of blame. They did what they did and as time went on left us with a Rube Goldberg mess that automatically tilts far right no matter who’s supposedly in power. The system no longer works, if it ever did. The Preamble and Declaration are great documents whose principles deserve our gratitude and fealty. The clumsy mechanics that sprung from the Founders’ own special interests and fear of democracy do not. Somehow, we have to find a way to change those mechanics despite the almost-impossible obstacles they burdened us with.
And they built in a lot of ways for us to change and interpret the Constitution to adjust to the times. Its easy to look jealously to other countries with parliamentary style electoral systems that tend to tilt their politics to the left, but those models didn’t exist in 1789. The most “democratic” (small d) institutions such as those in western europe were forged from the ashes of war and civil conflict last century.
I don’t call a Constitution with such near-impossible barriers to changing the fundamentals progressive. Quite the reverse. Tell me how even a supermajority of citizens could change the way the system works. Changing the Senate representation formula, for example, is literally impossible without a Constitutional Convention or a revolution. It can be persuasively argued that the very idea of a constitution itself is inherently anti-progressive.
.
Cain and Abel, Mars and Venus, Israel and Palestine. What’s missing with Democrats in Congress are the legions to make war. Take the fight to the enemy and not amongst persons with a similar disposition. It’s normal to earn the Nobel Prize after you won the war, never ahead of battle.
During the summer of 44 BC the senate’s leader, Cicero, delivered a series of infamous speeches against Marc Antony which came to be known as the ‘Philippics‘. Cicero saw in the young Octavian a useful ally. So, when in November 44 BC Antony left Rome to take command in northern Italy, Octavian was dispatched with the senate’s blessing to make war on Antony. Marc Antony was defeated at Mutina (43 BC) and forced to retreat into Gaul.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
If he would just “show leadership” and “use the bully pulpit” and do some “arm twisting” or, you know, lay down the law – since he’s supposed to be the party leader, then he could replace the Senate with an instant runoff based Chamber of People’s Deputies that would reduce greenhouse gasses during deliberations and would not require any animal testing or use of Rahm Emmanuels.
We tend to forget how divided the Founding Fathers were–over almost everything from the wording of the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Our “hallowed” document was just one big compromise. In its day. We are fortunate for the zeitgeist of its day.
Of course it was designed this way. Stepping aside from the fact that the people at large weren’t as educated as their leaders, the Founders were still wealthy elites bent on containing and holding power.
FDL has gone off the deep end. I mean, talking of primarying the President before his first State of the Union? Are they insane?
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19581
No one has ever accused FDL of being sane.
But I don’t see the problem really. They are not going to win, they are not even going to be a blip. They’re going to be crushed. So what’s the harm in mounting a quixotic primary challenge that is going to make a lot of people feel better and maybe have so real debate on just what Obama actually believes in, if anything.
The harm is the way this will feed the media windbags with tales about how even the lefties hate Obama now, and are organizing to dump him. I have to go with insane. Or sold-out troll.
What Dave said. It’s the media narrative controlled by Drudge that’s dangerous.
They do raise a very good question. They have gone after Howard Dean hard.
I have never seen them go after a Republican like this, not even Fox News.
It’s like they are committed to kicking progressives in the teeth at every turn.
yes