HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rgbecker » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Mon Oct 2, 2006, 10:23 PM
Number of posts: 4,764

Journal Archives

Here's another take on the filibuster...makes it very clear.

This is from a private newsletter.

Why the filibuster must end.

Several readers have asked me to comment on the filibuster rule in the Senate. I will give my layman’s view below, but I recommend that you first read the excellent analysis by Professor Heather Cox Richardson. Professor Richardson brings a dispassionate and historical perspective to the issue of the filibuster. I, on the other hand, am unconstrained by scholarly temperance and will discuss the matter with more outrage and personal bias.

First, why does the filibuster rule matter? In short, it gives the minority party in the Senate an effective veto over legislation proposed by the majority party. In its modern form, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to cut-off debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote. As a practical matter, that means that Republicans can defeat (or stall) much of Biden’s agenda. Although the filibuster rule can be abolished with a majority vote (51), Democrats don’t have 51 votes because Democratic Senator Joe Manchin has said he will not support elimination of the filibuster. See The Hill, “Manchin vows that he won't vote to kill filibuster 'under any condition'.”

The filibuster is simply a rule of the Senate—not a law or a constitutional requirement—that prescribes the number of Senators who must vote to end debate on a bill, thereby allowing a final vote on the floor of the Senate. See NYTimes, “The Senate Filibuster, Explained.” Here’s the problem with filibuster: The Framers of the Constitution, who were wealthy men with property or businesses, did not trust the general population to rule wisely. In addition, the less populated agrarian states did not trust the more populated industrial states. Sound familiar? To remedy this, the Framers created two chambers of Congress. The House of Representatives was roughly proportional to population (putting aside issues such as slavery, lack of women’s suffrage, and property requirements). The Senate, on the other hand, was designed to provide equal representation to states, without regard to population in the states. It was a necessary compromise to enact the Constitution.

In other words, the Senate is an undemocratic institution by design. The structure of the Senate effectively grants veto power to a small segment of the U.S. population. A bill that needs 51 votes to pass in the Senate can be defeated by states representing approximately 20% of the population. But a vote that needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster can be blocked by states representing approximately 10% of the population. (These numbers are based on population ranking without regard to the party affiliation in the Senate; actual results may vary.) Thus, the filibuster is an anti-democratic rule layered on top of an institution that is undemocratic by design.

The filibuster serves no good purpose. For most of its existence, the filibuster has been used by small Southern states to block civil rights legislation. Republicans cry crocodile tears and claim that the filibuster is necessary to protect “the rights of the minority” in the Senate. Hogwash! The very existence of the Senate protects the rights of the minority as shown by the percentages above. The filibuster is an agreement made when the Senate was effectively a private club of wealthy white men. It is long past time to eliminate the filibuster. But we may have to wait until 2022 to gain more seats in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster.

Another Bernie sighting.


About dead people voting.

So we have heard from Rand Paul and others about dead voters. Let's look a little closer at the situation in Wisconsin.

Here is an article that addresses several complaints that could be looked into.


From that article:

Dead voters

Nicole Granato of Menasha said that just by going through publicly available obituaries and the state’s voter information website, she said she was able to find 42 people who voted early but who died before Election Day, meaning that under state law, their votes shouldn’t have been counted.

Another man, who did not respond to a request for comment, emailed Tusler and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos on Nov. 17 alleging that someone he did not name in the village of Brandon in Fond du Lac County “voted and has been dead for many years.”

Fond du Lac County Clerk Lisa Freiberg said that after speaking with officials in Brandon, she thought she knew who the deceased person in Brandon was but that his ballot was never returned and there was nothing in the village’s post-election numbers to suggest anything amiss.

Granato provided records from the state’s MyVote website, which allows people to track a person’s voting history if they have the voter’s name and date of birth. She found 42 people from around Wisconsin who are listed as having voted in the Nov. 3 election but who also appear, according to obituaries that bear the same name and birth date, to have died before that date.

“The fact that I was able to easily find 42 people who voted who died before 11/03 is concerning,” she wrote Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in a Nov. 18 email. “It warrants investigation.”

Granato acknowledged to the State Journal that there’s no way to know how those 42 people voted and that the small number of votes weren’t enough to swing the presidential election.

Wisconsin law instructs Wisconsin clerks not to count absentee votes from people who have died before the election if they have proof they are in fact deceased, but in the absence of such proof, “The casting of the ballot of a deceased elector does not invalidate the election.”

Magney said that the WEC gets lists of people who have died from the Department of Health Services and those names are checked against the state voter list. When it appears there’s a match, an alert is sent to the local clerk so the clerk can update the poll book, he said. “I can’t say that every single registration list alert was addressed before the election, but I know we did a lot of work to bring that number down.”

Here's some statistics for those who need to some facts with real numbers.


In Wisconsin, 138 people die every day...6 an hour. That figures to .00236% of the entire population dying per day. 1,957,514 voted absentee and each day about 46 of that number died (on average). If the voting occurred over a period of 30 days, it is probable 1380 total died....about two thirds before election day. That's about 920 that shouldn't have been counted, but these would, according to the article, not invalidate the election. Further, that anyone would call such voting, "Voter fraud" is ludicrous.

Granato, only able to find 42, should be investigated to see what she is hiding.

Don't know about you, but I'm really pissed the insurectionists caused this lockdown.

Even with the Covid out of control, people would certainly have been allowed to come to the Washington Mall to celebrate the end of Trump and start of building back better.

Here's what I'm watching:


I read recently that Indiana, at one time, did not allow any blacks to come to the state.

I couldn't believe it, but reading about Pence's future and some discussion about what he did in the past led me to the following article.

Here is the line about banning blacks: Increasing tensions nationally between antislavery and slavery factions beginning in the late 1830s resulted in increasing prejudice against blacks. The culmination of this prejudice in Indiana was Article XIII of the Indiana Constitution of 1851, which stated that "No negro or mulatto shall come into, or settle in the State, after the adoption of this Constitution." Section 2 set fines for violations of the article, and Section 3 provided that money from fines be used to defray costs of sending blacks in Indiana to Liberia. Additional legislation required all blacks already living in Indiana to register with the clerk of the circuit court.


Can you say "Systemic Racism"?

Sometimes after starting a post, I decide not to continue.

As there is no "Cancel" button on the "Post a New Discussion thread" page (See below) I usually have to delete what I wrote and then move back or forward to another destination. Is there another alternative, or do you think a Cancel button should be added?

Did everyone see the video of the Helicopter hovering just over the protestors' heads?

One of the many differences between the responses to the Protestors.

I don't think you'll find one from yesterday....but if you do, please post it below.
Go to Page: 1