The Illogic of the Filibuster

[Stinky The Clown]

On the face of it, 40% of the votes can control the Senate.

But it is FAR worse than that.

Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Shumer, Gilibrand, Durbin, Burris, Feingold, and Franken represent more voters than are represented by the entire Repubican delegation.

The Senate rule keeps the entire country hostage to the will of men voted by state populations that are smaller than many large cities.

That, my friends, sucks.

[panader0]

1. The illogic is that a candidate can win with a very small majority

like Al Franken. He won a majority, no matter how small. Thn, when you get in the Senate, you need a "super" majority. 60%
Where's the democracy in that?
Rec'd

[Ozymanithrax]

2. The filibuster fits in with the founding father's theory of the purpose of the Senate.

The Senate was the bulwark against the tyranny of the ignorant majority. We are a Democratic Republic because a pure democracy was to be feared.

Originally, Senators were appointed not elected.

The filibuster fits in with their purpose. They are supposed to make sure that the majority do not become tyrants. If the Senate rules made sense, requiring everyone to be there, and a filibuster to really be some Senator talking until he passed out, it would work.

Without that rule, the Senate becomes a carbon copy of the House. I opposed it when Republicans wanted to use the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster. Most people here were with me. I oppose getting rid of the filibuster now. I support changing the rules a little.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

7. I'm hesitant to support a rule change for those very reasons.......

but the recent "tyranny of the minority" is really testing my resolve. I sure wish we could come up with another way to get things done w/out totally ditching the filibuster, because as soon as the Dems lose control of the Senate, look out!

[GodlessBiker]

3. For the same reason, the Senate itself is illogical.

[laughingliberal]

6. +1 nt

[Gaedel]

9. The Senate

was originally conceived to be appointed by the state legislatures. Popular vote election of senators was a much later amendment to the constitution.

The Senators were conceived to be the representative of their state's government and represented the sovereign states.

The House was the "people's house" and was conceived to represent the people.

[rufus dog]

4. I share two Senators

With the entire state of California, my County, along with two other CA Counties, has a population greater than Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and about the same as Iowa.

Add the total population of those states together and you ALMOST get to the population of CA.

So yes that sucks.

[laughingliberal]

5. K & R nt

[Canuckistanian]

8. It's really a problem of proportional representation

When a state like Rhode Island or Wyoming can produce a Senator that can BLOCK major legislation, AS MINORITY MEMBERS, despite national polls that oppose such opposition, you really have to wonder if the majority's wishes are being carried out.

And, as we witnessed with Max Baucus, sometimes politicians from states with vanishingly small populations can wield enormous power.

The lobbyists from powerful interest groups recognize this. Why is Max Baucus one of the biggest recipients of corporate campaign money?

It ain't becuase he's a Senator in a state of less than 1 million people.

[stltduggan]

10. I have no problem

I have no problems with the basic premise of the filibuster. It is good to have checks and balances. However, the GOP/Conservatives are so caught up in making sure that the Obama administration has its hands tied purely because they do not want him to succeed in any way. They have totally lost sight of why they are in the Senate and that is to make sure they do what is right for all the people of this country. It used to be called public service for a reason.