How the filibuster locks in minority rule big time

[PSPS]

Population representation in the Senate by party:

Democratic = 185,069,681
Republican = 146,116,273
Independent = 991,279

King and Sanders usually go with the democrats, so:

Democratic = 186,060,960 = 56% of population
Republican = 146,116,273 = 44% of population

40 republican senators with the lowest state population represent 60,343,980 = 18%

So, it is possible for senators representing less that 1 in 5 citizens can block anything. The only exceptions are budget reconciliation and executive and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations.

[kelly1mm]

1. It is entirely possible than we will love the filibuster again after the upcoming midterms. nt

[PSPS]

2. Until the republicans eliminate it

[rubbersole]

5. On the first day. n/t

[kelly1mm]

8. Why didn't McConnell get rid of the filibuster when he had the chance in 2016-17? nt

[kelly1mm]

7. President Trump urged McConnell to get rid of the filibuster in his term and McConnell refused.

What makes you think that will change (or why do you think the R's didn't get rid of it then?)

[Kid Berwyn]

14. Because they controlled 3 branches of government.

They didn’t need to filibuster. McConnell figured, correctly, Drumpf would lose Congress at the midterms.

[EarnestPutz]

3. The make-up of Congress is undemocratic, especially the Senate, which is by Constitutional design...

....but also the House, should be better but because of gerrymandering and voter suppression, is also in need of major reform. I hate the filibuster, but, truth be known, what we need first is Constitutional reform of our system of Representational Government.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

4. Given the possibility that the GOP could retake the Senate one day.

The lack of a filibuster would give extremists who represent a minority of the country almost unchecked power.

We have only have 48 Democrats in the Senate now. +2 Independents who caucus with our party. +1 with Kamala Harris.

It is a hell of a gamble. One that could doom the republic.

Be care what you wish for.

[unblock]

6. Your surmise is that if we don't ditch the filibuster, then some day:

Republicans are in a position to really advance their agenda, meaning they control the presidency and both houses of congress

But the filibuster is preventing this, meaning they don't have enough senators to break a filibuster.

And your view is that if we play nice now, these republicans, who bend every rule to win elections, who break norms to stack the Supreme Court, who are constantly calling us socialists and traitors and not the real Americans and so on, they're going to suddenly show respect and restraint and leave the filibuster intact, declining to advance their agenda.

*that* is a hell of a gamble.

[kelly1mm]

9. President Trump urged McConnell to get rid of the filibuster in his term and McConnell refused.

What makes you think he will do something different this time?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

10. What? That is not my surmise.

Lots of folks here seem to enjoy making up things out of whole cloth.

If we end the filibuster and (god forbid) the Republicans regain control of the White House and Congress, we'd be at the mercy of extremists.

Our majority in the Senate currently depends on a person who has self-identified as a socialist and isn't a Democrat but is part of our caucus, so our margins are as thin as they could be.

When the GOP has had the opportunity they have not scuttled the filibuster. No guarantee they would never try this tactic, but why do their work for them?

Way too dangerous. Bad idea.

[Novara]

11. The filibuster CAN be reformed. It doesn't have to be eliminated entirely.

The party in power - Democrats - can create carve-outs for certain issues. McConnell did so in order to elect more right wing judges. Why they don't even explore this - especially for voting rights - is beyond me. McConnell never hesitated for a second so he could ram a shit-ton of right wing activist judgers through.