What MIGHT Have Dems Done To Stop GOP On The Fillibuster? (title change)

[eniwetok]

Last edited Sun Apr 9, 2017, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Seeing the Dems have no leverage... all I could imagine that might stop McConnell was to make a bigger threat... that once the Dems again controlled the Senate, they'd try to rewrite the rules to weight each senate vote by half a Senator's state population. Since Dems now represent about 33 million more Americans than does the GOP... this would insure nothing passed the Senate without at least the approval of Senators who represented the majority of the US population. Let's remember that Clarence Thomas was also approved in this fashion. He then went on to be a key vote in Bush v Gore

I realize some here did not like my idea, though it was really meant to serve two purposes... to threaten but also to open up a debate about the antidemocratic nature of state suffrage... something that permeates our federal system... as we saw with the EC overturning the popular vote last election. Some here value conformity to an antidemocratic system... even when there is a tyranny of the minority... more than the moral legitimacy of government itself.

I am not so burdened.

So what other ideas are out there that can stop the gutter fighters in the GOP?

[FBaggins]

1. None

The vote has already been held...The nuclear device exploded.

[LOL Lib]

2. All my ideas end up with me being carried away in hand cuffs.

I'm intrigued by your idea. Not sure that current GOP demons would be moved by a future threat however. They have control and can't even process a future in which they don't have control.

[vlyons]

3. I want the 60 vote filibuster

I know that it enables obstruction. But I would like to see us get back to bi-partisanship.

[hatrack]

5. Be sure and leave some roses on my grave when that happens . . .

.

[eniwetok]

7. It can't happen.... the GOP has become too rabid

Going back to 1971s Lewis Powell suggested business launch a coordinated counter attack against liberalism... and part of that strategy was to take over the federal judiciary. The multifront strategy could never happen without pushing a new right militant ideology... brought to you by Heritage, AEI, and Cato... and since the 80's we've seen more and more rabid GOPers

[eniwetok]

9. the filibuster is a dual edged sword...

It's been used by southern racists to thwart civil rights laws.

The Senate is an inherently defective chamber because it's antidemocratic. The filibuster could be maintained by Senators representing a mere 10% of the US population. What we need is an democratic Senate where those who represent the minority can never govern.

[onenote]

10. How do you propose to get to that result?

[eniwetok]

12. two ways to reform an antidemocratic, virtually reformproof system

One: a concerted 50-75 year strategy to overcome the obstacles. The far right has been doing this since the 70's and it's showing results... but they have the advantage that right wingers are more irrational and the system now has a clear GOP bias...

Two: to force a constitutional crisis such as to have California threaten secession unless the system is finally made democratic. This is not without precedent. After all, the so-called Framers were NEVER charged with creating a new system but only to fix the failing Articles Of Confederation which foolishly required unanimous consent of the states for ANY reforms. They ultimately did have some cooperation from the Congress under the Articles when the new Constitution was sent out to the states to be ratified.

[HoneyBadger]

4. Logically, seeing as the Dems have no leverage

Meaning Gorsuch was a lock, Schumer had 2 choices. Confirm or nuke. He chose nuke. Which implies that nuke benefits him more than confirmation. Which means that Trump wanted confirmation more than nuke.

Schumer won.

[HoneyBadger]

6. Reid put it in motion with his 2013 nuke

This has been planned for a long time.

Reid won.

[eniwetok]

13. How did Schumer win anything?

Because of antidemocratic concept of state suffrage key elements of the federal government... the presidency, the Senate, and the amendment process now have a clear pro GOP bias. If the Senate becomes a majoritarian body then this benefits the GOP because as we see today the GOP can control the Senate even if they represent 33 million fewer Americans than the Dems.

[HoneyBadger]

14. Logically

Gorsuch was not stopped, nor does it seem that there was ever a plan to stop Gorsuch. Schumer had a choice, and he chose nuke. If Schumer did not want nuke, he obviously could have avoided it. So it appears that Schumer wanted nuke and he got it. He won.

[eniwetok]

15. So you said in your first post...

Schumer could just as well have been responding to the Dem base who are pissed about Garland.

But you're not really responding to my points. You're just repeating yours.

In the end the Senate is an inherently defective body... one designed to give ultra tiny minorities the ability to thwart even large super majorities. The very CLEAR danger here is since federalism clearly now has a GOP bias... giving small GOP states an edge in the Senate... more and more laws/nominations coming out of the Senate will reflect the will of states with a MINORITY of the US population. There's no way to reform the Senate to insure laws/nominations are passed reflecting the majority of the population unless we abolish state suffrage... OR weight the votes of each Senator to reflect half their state's population.

[Demsrule86]

17. There was never a way to stop Gorsuch...

The Republicans have the power...and they will get their court pics...you want to shut them down ...then work your ass off to take the Senate in 18...than we can refuse to put any judges on the court...the reality is if you don't have the Senate now, your judges won't get approved. McConnell started this by refusing to approve Garland and saying Hillary would have no picks in four years if they kept the Senate...Schumer is resisting and you don't always win...there will be other losses...losing this election was a terrible blow to liberalism.

[HoneyBadger]

19. So the question becomes why does Schumer want the nuke?

[Demsrule86]

22. The base demanded it first of all

Part of the resistance ...don't give an inch...and McConnell did not want to break the filibuster but I think it is time for it to go.

[HoneyBadger]

24. Base wanting the nuke is a valid reason for Schumer to support it

But Schumer is a really sharp politician, I suspect that this is more him leveraging his base than vice versa. Just my opinion.

[Demsrule86]

25. It was about the base and the mid-terms in my opinion.

And I believe the Dems are damned mad about Garland...the nerve of the GOP to do something like that.

[eniwetok]

33. The GOP plays dirty because control of the courts IS key to their strategy

On some level the GOP knows it has a minority agenda of protecting wealth and corporate power... but they can't openly run on that agenda. So they need to do two key things:

Con single issue voters to join their coalition and

Game an antidemocratic system, including the courts, that the Dems obligingly refuse to ever reform to make it democratic.

I haven't done an analysis of votes for Roberts and Alito, but Thomas was approved by Senators who represented less than 50% of the US population and I suspect Gorsuch just was as well. And THIS is a key reason that Dems should FINALLY cast a critical eye at not just the EC but the Senate... and ALL parts of the Constitution that involve state suffrage because they ALL are inherently antidemocratic.

[Demsrule86]

34. I don' t see your can reform SCOTUS

You can't blame the Dems because the GOP are scoundrels who stole Obama's nomination. Now, no judge will be approved unless the president has his party in Congress...and the Democrats have to do that because you can not allow one party to govern which includes picking nominees and not allow the other party to govern which also includes picking nominees...the GOP poisoned the well and damaged our Republic and there is nothing we can do about it.

[eniwetok]

38. Reform? That NO Judge be ratified by Senators representing a minority of US population

If I had my wish NO law or nomination would leave the Senate without being approved by Senators who represent the majority of the US population... same with presidential elections and the amendment process.

[Demsrule86]

42. It just is never going to happen.

Sure it would be nice and all...

[eniwetok]

43. it's never going to happen when...

Dems refuse, even here, to defend democratic principles.

There are only two ways I can see to reform our antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system....

A 50-100 year concerted strategy to overcome all the obstacles to reform the Constitution by the rules... or

A constitutional crisis such as California threatening secession unless democratic reforms are made...

We are already up shit creek.... but if all reform efforts fail demographic trends will continue to make the Constitution increasingly antidemocratic and reformproof.

[former9thward]

44. The Republicans would love to see CA seceed

There would be no Constitutional crisis.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. That's what I'm thinking as well n/t

[eniwetok]

50. sure there would... the NATION would not stand for it

[former9thward]

66. I think you have an odd definition of "the NATION".

The nation is not just people who think like you. Also if CA wanted to succeed that would presumably mean most people in CA wanted to do that. I think the nation would respect those wishes.

[eniwetok]

68. people are attached to their state and nation

Hard core right wing extremists might look at the political benefits to the far right... but I suspect people generally are as much attached to their state and concept of the nation as they think they are to the flag and Constitution. Then there's the fear of losing military bases and ports. Cal could impose high port fees on goods being imported/exported from Cal port. Then there's the fear other left coast states might follow. And then there's the matter that unlike the Confederacy that seceded for the inhuman goal of protecting slavery... Cal WOULD have a morally just cause: civic equality in the vote and to prevent a tyranny of the minority. Part of this scenario would have to be democratic alternatives to protecting legitimate rights of small or rural states and there's no reason this can NOT be done with constitutional protections or insuring that someone from, say a farm state, didn't always chair relevant congressional committees so they could shape relevant legislation. The problem with the current arrangement should be obvious... that under the guise of protecting small state interests by giving them extra power do not LIMIT them from exercising that power in ALL areas... leading to possible government by the minority as we now see in the EC and Senate.

[regnaD kciN]

52. If we take back both the House and Senate, we can do a lot more than "refuse"...

Although most people don't know it, there is no Constitutional basis for a nine-justice SCOTUS. It is set entirely by statute (regular laws), and has varied between six and ten members throughout the life of the nation.

So, say Trump gets the Republican dream, and is able to replace two more justices -- liberal ones like RBG -- with hardline conservatives, giving the Court a 7-2 conservative majority. Then we win both houses of Congress and the Presidency by 2020. There is absolutely nothing to keep us from passing a bill declaring, essentially, "nine justices are too few...let's make it fifteen instead," and then naming six progressives to those spots, flipping the Court to a 8-7 liberal majority. All it would take is 216 votes in the House and 50+VP in the Senate...and there's not a damn thing Republicans can do to stop it.

[MichMary]

67. After your post I started

wondering how FDR's efforts to increase the number of justices (to 15, btw) had failed. Turns out that not all Dems supported it. That could actually happen again. There are still a lot of conservative Senators, like Joe Manchin, who can't be counted on to support Dem efforts.

And even if it did pass, the effort could come back to bite us in the butt. Remember, the ACA wasn't all that popular with the conserva-Dems, and deals had to be made. Every one of the Dem Senators from conservative states who eventually voted for it, were defeated in re-election, or retired and were replaced by R's.

All in all, not a great idea.

[okieinpain]

61. 1 n/t.

[Demsrule86]

18. What plan could work? None is the answer. You all forget

that the GOP have the White House and Congress.

[mvd]

11. Walk out of the Senate in protest?

Can they vote without Dems present?

Outside that, I guess they can be like the British Parliament and shout and get out of order en mass. That won't change the vote, but it would be great to witness.

[Demsrule86]

16. They can't do that...that would be unconstitutional.

You would need an amendment.

[eniwetok]

20. depends what suffrage means...

The relevant clause here is in Art 5: "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Suffrage is a RIGHT to vote. It says nothing about the WEIGHT of a vote. It's a technical distinction and yet we know from the House that every state is guaranteed at least one representative regardless of population. So while SOME representatives are roughly based on population of congressional districts... but this qualification proves it need not be.

But if YOU are going to claim, as so many others have... that this MUST be done by amendment... then I await some substantial argument.

[Demsrule86]

21. This mean two for every state it was fought over and is very clear...never happen.

[eniwetok]

23. You're EVADING the question

Try rereading my last answer to your post. And where is your CONSTITUTIONAL argument that prohibits this?

The simple issue here is the concept of suffrage really says nothing about whether votes have different weights. One might ASSUME this means all votes have equal weight... but it's NOT inherent in the definition of suffrage.

And I've seen the GOP bastardize the Constitution by trying to negate the Ninth and negate the Second to negate the militia clause. Are you saying there is NO value in pushing this argument if only to highlight the antidemocratic nature of the Senate? Or are you one of these liberal Dems who pretends to value democracy yet never bothers to even define what democratic principles are?

[Demsrule86]

26. As written there are two Senators for each state...equal suffrage.

As it turns out I was incorrect...you can not change the number of senators even with an amendment because an amendment is forbidden...and equal suffrage is a pretty clear statement.

"On the last business session of the Philadelphia Convention, September 15, 1787, the subject of the amendment process came up again. Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman voiced his fear that the Constitution as proposed would allow three-fourths of the states to take actions that would be fatal to particular states, such as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equal suffrage in the Senate. In an effort to prevent that from happening, Sherman made a series of motions. His motion to amend the proposed article to provide that no amendment would become effective until it had been ratified by all of the states failed, with three states voting for it and seven against it. Sherman's next motion, to prohibit any amendment without the consent of the state, that would affect it in "its internal police" or deprive it of its equal suffrage in the Senate, also failed, this time by a vote of eight to three. Sherman persisted. His next motion was drastic: to strike the entire article relating to amendments and thus make the entire Constitution unamendable. Not surprisingly, this motion was also soundly defeated.
Finally, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania made the motion that was to result in another proviso being added to article five of the Constitution. Morris argued that the provision guaranteeing to each state equal suffrage in the Senate should not be subject to amendment. Along with the slave issue, the composition of the Congress had been one of the most divisive issues debated that summer in Philadelphia; a compromise had emerged from seemingly irreconcilable differences. No one wanted to jeopardize what had been accomplished. Madison described what happened: "[T]his motion, being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small states, was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question, saying no."

[eniwetok]

28. RED HERRING ALERT!!

As it turns out I was incorrect...you can not change the number of senators even with an amendment because an amendment is forbidden...and equal suffrage is a pretty clear statement.

Leaving aside you didn't have the courtesy of providing a link to your source... my god, your reading comprehension skills are also in question.

Where did I EVER suggest changing the number of Senators per state.

Put up or retract.

Obviously you seem determined to join a discussion to disagree with a proposal when it's clear you have NO idea what the proposal is.

[eniwetok]

31. I ask AGAIN... what is suffrage?

You want to keep making claims such as

As it turns out I was incorrect...you can not change the number of senators even with an amendment because an amendment is forbidden...and equal suffrage is a pretty clear statement.

And yet you seem determined to EVADE the key question here... just WHAT IS SUFFRAGE. What's clear is it's the RIGHT to vote, or as a 1792 source below says is to CHOOSE by vote . What is at issue here is whether implicit in that definition is that all votes WEIGH the same.

Even if there's a question here... ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ANTIDEMOCRATIC NATURE OF THE SENATE HIGHLIGHTS THE GOP's TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY. Either the Dems FINALLY stand up for democratic principles... or they will continue to endure the now clear GOP bias in US federalism.

https://books.google.com/books?id=j-UIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=suffrage&f=false

[Demsrule86]

35. clearly the intent was two Senator from every state to give the smaller states some say...so

suffrage means that. It was the only way to get the constitution approved...and when the smaller states complained about an amendment process which might change this down the road...they made this not subject to amendment. We began with two in the time of the signing so clearly that is what they meant...and they said it was ot amendable so it can not be amended.

[eniwetok]

37. EVASION ALERT!!! And please spare us the civics lessons

I know damn well what the "intent" was... and the the "intent" of the Ninth was to protect unenumerated rights and the "intent" of the Second was to protect state militias from the Congress disarming them.

SO WHAT.

In BOTH cases the GOP has sought ways around them just as the Dems are trying to find a way around the EC with the Popular Vote Interstate Compact.


The question is whether the Senate can change the rules in such a way that MAINTAINS state suffrage... but weights the votes differently. You seem DETERMINED to evade the question of just what "suffrage" is... but instead just keep regurgitating 4th grade civics.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. No, the Senate can't change the rules

in such a way that the Senatorial votes of larger states are weighted more heavily at the expense of smaller states. "Equal suffrage" in the Senate means that each state, regardless of size, gets the same number of votes, weighted equally.

Wait, let me rephrase - the Senate could change the rules, the states would sue, and the SCOTUS would rule 9-0 against the Senate.

[eniwetok]

41. let them sue

Just finally having an open debate on whether government by the minority is morally legitimate IS WORTH IT FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

But again... where is it state that suffrage = equal weight of every vote? Our entire system is full voting weighting/dilution schemes which violate the principle of civic equality in the vote in terms of representation. These schemes are ILLEGAL on the state level because they make a mockery of election when some have bigger votes than others.

We know the GOP loves antidemocratic government because it clearly has a GOP bias in the EC and Senate. The real question is why are Dems AWOL on democratic principles.

[eniwetok]

39. what's the REAL intent of the Senate? Why do you believe those civics lessons?

On the surface it's what that official explanation that you regurgitated from your civics class. But that's the problem with believing the Federalist Papers told the truth... as opposed to were just designed to get the states to ratify the Constitution. From the secret minutes of the so-called Constitutional Convention... ya, even that name is a misleading rewrite of history since the convention was NOT assigned the task of writing a new constitution BUT TO FIX THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

MADISON: Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

And was the EC really designed, as Hamilton claimed, to prevent a demagogue from becoming president? Or was it to magnify the vote of whites in slaves states? From the July 19 notes of the Convention

MADISON: The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

[HoneyBadger]

27. You could make states virtual instead of physical

Addresses nationwide could be randomly and equally assigned to states. So one house would be California, the next apartment Ohio, the Starbucks Alaska. Which would ensure electoral college fairness. If the state affiliation was randomly changed at random times, it would ensure that there were no red and blue states. The popular vote would be all that mattered. Making Congress less of a lifetime job, and limiting the coordination required to filibuster.

[eniwetok]

51. there's no way to make the EC fair since it has antidemocratic intent

If all the EC can do is ratify the popular vote then it's not needed.

If the EC can overturn the popular vote then it's an antidemocratic abomination that destroys the concept of self-government and should not be tolerated.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. None.

But don't worry. When Congress flips in 2018, the Senate GOP will quickly pass a bill making the filibuster law so that Dems won't benefit from this. "No filibuster" is a two year thing.

[Demsrule86]

36. The Senate may flip...and we can just change it when we get it back...it is done...and consider

that no president will ever get justices unless their party controls the Senate...the GOP did a terrible thing.

[oberliner]

30. None

Democrats have zero leverage at this point.

[eniwetok]

32. sure at THIS point

This proposal was the only leverage I could think of that might have given the Dems any leverage BEFORE the GOP changed the rules... that once back in power the Dems would change the rules in a way the GOP would truly fear since they know that like Trump, they only have power because the system is antidemocratic. And even if the Dems chickened out or went through with it and lost in the courts... ANY DISCUSSION on how the system is antidemocratic is a debate we need to finally have in the US. It's beyond me how many defer to the system rather than thinking about the bigger issue of just what is needed to give a government moral legitimacy. I believe in that standard the nation was founded on... that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. That minority rule is little different than having an unelected king.

[CK_John]

45. First of all the House has to start all money bills, the Senate has advise and consent duty.

1/3 the Senate is replaced every 2 yrs and House complete replaced every 2 yr. Every law must be agreed to by both houses before it is accepted by the POTUS.

So I think this is a good as your going to get.

Stop wasting your time on an impractical project, a bright person that could be spending time solving how to implemented UBI.

[eniwetok]

47. translation: you've bought into antidemocratic government

and think it's the best we can ever do.

Got it!

And NO, the Senate has more roles than advice and consent. As a antidemocratic body where 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats it has a VETO over anything that comes out of the House, a veto over any amendment that goes to the states, AND it has a monopoly on ratifying nominations and treaties. It was designed to be our House Of Lords and protect the interests of wealth.

And thanks for proving the difference between the right which developed a coordinated strategy back in the 70s to turn America into Amerika.... and stuck with it... and Dems who in 40 years STILL can't come up with a devastating response to the GOP's Starve The Beast strategy.

You're here regurgitating 4th grade civics when the REAL issue is WHAT CONSTITUTES MORALLY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

48. I'd be interested in seeing where

you get that 18% of the population gets 52% of the seats.

[eniwetok]

49. do the math...

That's based on dated 2004 official Census population estimates I used for the 26 smallest population states compared to the next 24. If anything the system has become more antidemocratic as the bigger states have grown faster. It might now be below 17%. This is the problem with state suffrage. We were brought up to believe that "states" have will and intent when it's really only the people who live there. With the amendment formula it's even worse... states with 4% of the US population can block any amendment... yet states with 40% can ratify one.

EDIT... it's nuttier still with the amendment formula. Since it's doubtful everyone in those 12 states would agree... it means an amendment could be stopped by a shade over 2% of the US population. NOTE: one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation were tossed out... even if they were the supreme law of the land is because any amendment required unanimous consent of all the states. Our system is now virtually reformproof. Not ONE of the most antidemocratic features has EVER been reformed.

EDIT 2: Using 2016 census numbers but last years election results I also calculated that Senate Dems represent about 33 million more people than does the GOP. Methodology... assigning a full state's population in case one party holds both seats, other wise a 50% split.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

53. If you look at the estimated population numbers from 2016

your 18% estimate is way, way off.

Estimated 2016 U.S. population: 322,464,620

Population of states represented by two Democratic Senators or Democrat/Independent: 139,864,970 (43.47%)
Population of states represented by two Republican Senators: 105,621,918 (32.75%)
Population of states represented by split parties (Rep/Dem or Rep/Ind): 76,977,732 (23.87%)

So you are correct that there is a disparity between state populations as a percentage of national population and Senatorial representation, but it is nowhere near the 18% figure.


Edited to add: I just realized that when you use the 52% figure, you weren't talking about the current Senate makeup, but rather the aggregate. So in that sense, yes, it about 18% (17.66%, to be exact for 2016 figures). Apologies for misunderstanding.

[eniwetok]

57. as I said... I split the populations of the split states....

Ultimately there's no real definitive measure. The Senate, after all, is an antidemocratic body with an odd election cycle. I've tried population AND vote totals... which gets really confusing given the 3 classes of the Senate. If one wants to total votes then it must cover 3 elections... and then to make it more confusing, off year elections have drastically lower turnout. But even using this method the system has a clear GOP bias.

[Warpy]

54. Force them to get up and start talking

That would have stopped a lot of them right there.

The GOP just had to threaten to filibuster and the Democrats considered it a done deal. That was a stupid idea.

[Leith]

55. The Only Thing Left to Do

is make sure that every American voter knows which party fucked them over after the 2016 election.

No more Obamacare? Blame the rethugs.
Jobs didn't come back? The rethugs lied.
Tap water not good enough to drink? Rethugs decimated the regulations.
Rise in respiratory illnesses? Rethugs slashed EPA regs and funding.

Make them own every stupid little thing - and every stupid BIG thing - that they do to fuck up the country.

[eniwetok]

58. No... the REAL message must be that the GOP represents THE MINORITY

We have to distinguish between issues and the bigger matter of the moral legitimacy of minority run government.

I realize this is a matter Dems shy from. But given their signature safety net programs now face an existential threat BECAUSE of minority government... it's time Dems faced the real problem with our system.

[JHB]

56. Nothing. They're not interested in anything that doesn't capitulate to them right now.

Threatening something down the line is so much hot air. We might do it, when we can, but to bring it up now would have done nothing.

They held up Garland in hopes of getting a conservative-approved nominee under Jeb. By the time Jeb had flamed out and they were looking at Trump, he'd at least offered them a slate of justice nominees hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Even when it looked as though Hillary would win the election, they talked about hearing Garland in the lame duck time, because it was after the election, and working with Obama would have less of a price for them than working with Hillary. When Trump got in due to interference, they were free and clear to go with the nominee designed to cater to them.

The Democrats had only one option, and that was complete resistance, even if the enemy overcame it.

[eniwetok]

60. it's not hot air if the threat is existential

If the Senate rules could be rewritten so each vote was based on population... it's unlikely THE GOP WOULD EVER HAVE A MAJORITY.

Sure there are problems with this approach, one that the Dems buy into the concept of an antidemocratic Senate. Another whether the court might try an over turn any such rule change. But even THE DEBATE about the insanity of antidemocratic government would be desirable. After all... it's what gives the GOP the edge... even though they don't deserve it if we valued TRUE democratic principles... that only PEOPLE should have the vote... not artificial entities called states which are really nothing but those who live there.

[JHB]

64. All I can say is that you don't understand the mindset of what we are up against.

Everything you are talking about is too far down the line. Their base didn't care about it. They voted for Trump to get a conservative on the supreme court, and nothing -- NOTHING -- was going to stop that. But capitulation to it would have damaged the Democrats, who already have a problem as being seen (with cause) as not being willing to fight.

The Republicans will only care about not having a majority when they've lost the one they have.

[eniwetok]

65. the issue here is NOT the GOP base... BUT THE DEMOCRATIC BASE

I don't expect the GOP to ever give a shit about morally legitimate government. After all the GOP has a minority agenda of protecting wealth and could never win an election on that issue. The problem here is NOT the GOP. I've been debating Dems about democratic government for close to 20 years and despite what one might think about liberal Dems being the might defenders of democratic principles... they are NOT.

Liberal Dems live in a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance. They want to believe they have a monopoly of democracy yet they implicitly support our ANTIdemocratic system. We see that here in this thread where so many are stuck in what they learned in their 4th grade US History class... that somehow the system of the Senate vs the House all works out to make the system fair. But this is entirely based on a defective narrative that only STATES matter. Once we look at how any single PERSON is represented... then lie falls apart.

[tritsofme]

69. "Sure there are problems..." talk about an understatement! This would be a coup, not a "rule change"

[eniwetok]

70. the Constitution was a coup!

The Articles of Confederation were the supreme law of the land. The so-called Framers were only tasked with fixing them. They chose instead to negate them... technically an illegal if not traitorous act. We want to sweep this under the table. And let's not forget that when the right tries to negate the Ninth, or negates the militia clause of the Second... they are involved in much worse because while the courts might stop this suggestion, its the right wingers on the court that did bastardized the Constitution..

[Calista241]

62. Government, including the Senate, is inherently unfair and non-representative.

For instance, I am a Democrat in the state of Georgia, therefore my interests are wholly unrepresented in the Senate as it's composed today. Just like I'm sure there are Republicans in California that have no representation in the Senate.

Despite that, I'm not in favor of changing the Senate as it's constituted today. However, if you have a better idea, feel free to propose it and we can all discuss its positives and negatives.

[eniwetok]

63. can't have it both ways...

Leaving aside the fact that government need NOT be inherently unfair... if an election is to measure a voter's consent to govern.... then any "winner take all" election is a theft of that consent which is then given to someone that voter did not want. Yet our entire system is based not only on the antidemocratic idea of theft of consent... but that SOME voters have a bigger vote than others in terms of representation. Any voter in WY has a 70x bigger Senate vote than any voter in CA... and a 4x bigger EC vote for president.

As long as SOME citizens get a bigger vote than others, there's a chance for antidemocratic government... aka a tyranny of the minority.

So when you ask if someone has a better idea than the Senate today... the answer is almost ANY idea is better than today's Senate. The BEST idea is a Senate based on national proportional representation.