End to filibuster will mean fewer "free votes" for Congress

[phantom power]

As he mentions, the entire existence of our bicameral legislature is one giant "free vote" generator, which has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. But if the end of the filibuster results in fewer accountability-free votes, I see that as nothing but win for democracy.

... At this point, it would probably be helpful to do a thought experiment. Think back to 2007, when the Democrats had just retaken control of the House of Representatives and the Senate (by a 51-49) margin. They introduced the Employee Free Choice Act, passed it by a large margin in the House, and got every Democrat in the Senate (except Tim Johnson of South Dakota who was recovering from a stroke) to vote for it. The only Republican to support the bill was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who would not remain a Republican much longer.

Because the Republicans filibustered the bill, the 51 votes it got were nine votes shy of what was needed to send it to the president's desk for signage. But Bush would have vetoed it anyway, so the bill was actually sixteen votes shy (in the Senate) of what would have been needed to become a law. The vote was essentially a free vote. Since everyone knew that the bill wouldn't become a law that pissed off a bunch of rich anti-labor employers, it was easier to vote for it an avoid pissing off the Democratic Party's union supporters.

When the bill was introduced again in 2009, circumstances had changed. There was a Democratic president who wouldn't veto the bill. The Democrats nominally controlled 60 seats, although a delay in seating Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota and severe health issues plaguing Sens. Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy made it necessary to find Republican votes except a very brief period between September and January that was dedicated to passing the health care reforms.

Nonetheless, unions had a right to expect that those who had supported the bill two years previously would help them again. But Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, and Arlen Specter bolted. Suddenly, with the prospect of the bill actually becoming a law, they weren't going to support a cloture vote on it. They were going to filibuster a bill that they had previously supported.

This is the kind of dynamic that is altered by eliminating the filibuster. Hiding behind cloture votes enables you to support things your base wants but that you think are too politically perilous to support if they might actually become law. Blanche Lincoln (D-Walmart) was pro-union when it didn't count, and the Waltons were okay with that…wink, wink, nod, nod.

In the new Senate, particularly if the legislative filibuster soon succumbs, there will many fewer of these free votes, and imperiled senators in the middle will need to break with their party more often and more openly, which should provide more opportunities for bipartisan coalitions in the middle to form to cover each other's asses. Rather than joining together to block legislation, which wasn't even necessary so long as the Republicans remained united in their opposition, these senators will have to join together to mitigate the damage that could be done to their political careers if legislation actually passed. If sufficient mitigation cannot be achieved, they will have to join together to vote the legislation down.

This, then, will cause party unity to fray near the center. If an Arkansan Democrat can no longer make a pretense of being pro-labor, they must pick up some support elsewhere to make up for what they've lost. Or, if a Pennsylvania Republican cannot win without union support, they will have to buck the Chamber of Commerce. You can interpret this as either expanding or restricting centrists' freedom of action, but they should behave differently.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/11/22/10286/404

[n2doc]

1. Unfortunately the change doesn't apply to legislation

So the free votes will continue.

[phantom power]

2. He's starting with a hypothesis that the filibuster will be universally ended.

That's a prediction about the future, of course. I have no idea if his logic there is well founded or not.

[Coyotl]

3. Now a minimum wage bill can be sent to the House. The House now has to answer for not acting too.

This is the other huge change, the House no longer gets off the hook on all the bill that have not made it past a filibuster in the Senate.

Let them either pass it or explain in Fall 2014 why a minimum wage was passed by the Dem Senate and stalled by the House!