Can we discuss that filibuster thing? And maybe term limits, too.

[Stinky The Clown]

The filibuster is part and parcel of the Senate. The Senate, it is said, is where good bills go to die. The Senate, it seems to many, is where ossified politicians go to work for little more than the perpetuation of their continuance in office.

Every state gets two Senators. Charts and graphs abound that show how the Senate heavily favors, and artificially magnifies, the influence of small populations. Wyoming is the equal of New York, Illinois, or California. A senator from a state with less than 1,000,000 in population can stop a bill favored by the senators representing scores of millions.

If a corporate interest wishes to kill a bill, he need only buy one or two senators. That's pretty damned cheap.

The worst abuse, however, is the modern filibuster. One senator can say "gee . . . . I duuno" and a bill is effectively dead.

We hear that the filibuster saved us during the reign of terror that was the cheney presidency. I content that what we saw was simply the flip side of the general duplicity that is the Senate. I do, indeed, think the two parties, specifically in the Senate, are simply mirror images of the other. The filibuster allows each side to shrug and point to the "opposition" as the reason this or that did or didn't pass. It provides cover for the complacent cowards that have been there for 16, or 32, or more years, fat, dumb, and happy suckling on the public teat as they are.

It seems to me that its long past time to remove the political shield of the filibuster - the cover for inactivity and do-nothingness.

And while we're talking about the Senate, given the inherent unfairness of the power of the minority over the majority, let's get some term limits, too. Make the people who go there a tiny bit more likely to go there to serve the people they represent, rather than simply to serve time and then retire.

And you know, taking away their retirement benefits wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

And in the Senate dining room, maybe we can start setting their places with road maps as placements, each with their home town circled. Just as a reminder. Ya think?

[T Wolf]

1. The unfair and destructive influence of the small states versus the big states is the worst thing

about the governmental setup that we are stuck with.

This will never change because the little ones will never give up their power.

I do not see a solution other than breaking up the US into smaller, more manageable units. And while doing so, go to a truly democratic arrangement of allocating representation.

This version of experimental governing is done - it does not work.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. You're right, of course, that we'll likely never change that part of our structure, but we *might*

.... be able to change how we deal with it.

[Abq_Sarah]

11. Each state is regarded as equal

By the Fed. That's why each state has two senators. They represent the interests of the states (at least in theory).

I really don't want to go to a system where states with small population totals are considered inferior and less worthy of representation.

[demosincebirth]

14. They should be less representative, they have less people. Take

Wyoming vs California. Should they have equal votes in the senate?

[havocmom]

21. but a whole lot less representation in congress

that was the whole point of the two houses of Congress

[demosincebirth]

25. All the good legislation gets, usually, get shit-canned in the senate by

senators from the least populous states. We ought to drop the senate and to a parliamentarian system

[Abq_Sarah]

27. Absolutely

Every state is equal. Remember civics 101: On the federal level, the house represents the people, the senate represents the states. Without a senate, small states would be subject to the whims of large (population states). In any event, it would require a complete revision of our form of government. The constitution would have to be amended and it's not likely you'll get 2/3rds of both houses of congress or 3/4 of the states to buy into such a change.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. You're happier with some people being considered inferior?

If you want to phrase it in that way, that's what the status quo is.

You can either give equal "worth" to all people, or to all states. I think that the answer is self-evident - each citizen of the US should have equal power. Those in smaller states should have a big say in electing a small number of people*; those in more populous states a smaller say in electing a larger number.

*Or, arguably, keep to two senators per state, but give each of their votes a weight proportional to the size of the state they represent.

[Abq_Sarah]

28. I'm not sure what the difficulty is

In understanding the Senate represents the individual states, each of which is considered equal as an entity, under the federal government. If you want a democracy vs a republic, you're going to have to call a constitutional convention because it's not possible under our current form of government.

[madinmaryland]

15. You must be referring to Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire,

and Hawaii.

Just a guess.

:shrug:

[pampango]

2. I'd rather see nonpartisan districts that produced competitive elections rather than the

gerrymandered "safe" districts that ensures noncompetitive elections.

In our part of Ohio we have a succession of republican legislators on the state level. They cycle in and out due to term limits, but the content doesn't change. If we had a fairly-drawn district I wouldn't mind if someone got reelected repeatedly.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. That would apply to the House. The Senate is always statewide.

[Bitwit1234]

10. Gerrymandered districts is correct that is the only reason

people like Bachmann get to come back year after year. BUT thank goodness this would be the last time she wins, IF, she does. Since Minnesota is losing a representative, her district is being drawn out of existence. Divided between two Democratic districts. Think she could win those...hell no.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. No arguiment, but . . . . . .

. . . . "districts" is an issue exclusive to the House and exclusive of the Senate, which was the subject of this particular post.

[thelordofhell]

3. Yet another "Term Limits" garbage post

Hey buddy, you want to give a politician term limits? VOTE THEM OUT!!

[dems_rightnow]

4. I'll mark you down as "undecided"

:-)

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Thank you for that thoughtful and cogent response. It really helped focus my thoughts

[Codeine]

5. We already have term limits. We call them elections.

If my state wants to keep a Senator in place for thirty years then we should have that right. Term limits are the very antithesis of democracy -- they are the hallmark of reactionary know-nothingness.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Convince me of that

You closed off discussion with your post's tone.

Hopefully you'll come back and add something thoughtful to support your view and maybe change a mind.

[LWolf]

13. That would be true with a more level playing field.

I don't think the playing field for a newcomer vs an incumbent is ever going to be "level;" the public will know more about one than the other.

But the incumbent also has the advantage of a campaign machine already in place, and committed donors.

Make elections 100% publicly financed. THEN call elections "term limits."

[phantom power]

12. I see you and raise you: let's abolish the Senate and go unicameral...

Because here's another game they play: The House can "pass" a bill, knowing that it will die in the Senate. But the Senate can "pass" a bill, safe in the knowledge it will die in the House.

Fuck that. I have an idea: just the House. If you vote for a bill, and it passes, then it's Law, and you are accountable.

[AlinPA]

16. We might need the filibuster if these predictions hold that we lose the senate in Nov.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Both term limits and the filibuster are anti-democratic

Publicly funded elections would go a long way in dealing with entrenched incumbency and getting rid of the filibuster would probably encourage some level of moderation and willingness to deal because everybody would know they are always two years from having everything they passed undone or even a backlash that would push hard in the opposite direction.

Probably would take a few cycles of total war to create the sanity of fear.

[obxhead]

18. This was the biggest Dem failure during the Bush admin.

We had a real chance to end the filibuster during the Bush admin in 04 and 05.

In order to get rid of the filibuster the minority party will have to be in support of it. They gotta take one for the team as they say. Yes they lose a great power while in that minority but when they have the majority they can really get some things done. It will take courage not seen in many of our Senators to eliminate the filibuster. Hopefully the next time the Dems are in that minority they will reflect on how close they were to having the chance to really make some change during 09/10 and hopefully 11/12 terms if only they had removed the filibuster when they had the chance.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Color me a cynic, but your post presupposes they actually want to "make some change"

I'm not so sure the senate actually does want to accomplish anything. By maintaining the conflict and tension we perceive to exist, they set up a reason for us to support them and donate to their campaigns.


I'm not arguing with you. I'm just a cynic doing what a cynic does.

[T Wolf]

22. Exactly. It's not like they used it much in "resisting" george's crimes. Maybe they were saving it

for the pukes to use.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. My contention is that it serves the interests of both parties, but not the interest of the people

Mr Smith was fictional.

[surrealAmerican]

24. Term limits would cause far more problems than they would solve.

Senators would be too highly motivated to shill for whoever promises them the most lucrative paid position after their "retirement" from the senate.

[AnArmyVeteran]

29. How about lottery 'elections'?

Put every American's name in a hat who is over 25 and draw names to be senators, representatives and local offices. Even open it up to prisoners. They couldn't be any worse than what we have now. Just about everyone serving in congress should be in jail for one reason or another. A lottery would totally eliminate corporate control over our elections.

If a representative failed to adequately represent his people he would be thrown out of office and another name would be selected from the lottery pool.