Seating only Burris or Franken will not affect our ability to pass legislation

While most people refer to 60 votes as the magic number to overcome a Senate filibuster, the actual number is 3/5 of the number of Senators "duly chosen and sworn."

So let us assume both are not seated. That means we need 3/5 of 98, or 58.8. This means that 59 can invoke cloture to break any filibuster (and we will have 57).

Now, let us assume only one or the other is seated. That means we need 3/5 of 99, or 59.4. We therefore need 60 votes to invoke cloture (since 59 is less than 59.4), and we will have 58. In other words, the number of Senators we need goes up, and the number of Democratic Senators we have goes up. So no change.

Finally, let us assume that both are seated. This means that we need 3/5 of 100, or 60. We will have 59 (which brings us one vote closer).


All of this means that just from a political perspective, it does not help or hurt Democrats to just seat one or the other (compared to seating neither). So if Burris is not seated, it will not affect our ability to pass legislation (until Franken is seated, in which case seating Burris would bring us one vote closer to 60).

To be clear, I don't think any Blagojevich appointment should be seated, as there is clear evidence that the process in which the appointment was made was tainted (nothing against Burris). While Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty, the Senate acts as its own judge in seating its members and it does not need to rely on a court's verdict. This post is just trying to ease some people's worries that not seating Burris will hurt Obama's ability to pass vital elements of his agenda.

Different time, different people. Republican Senate. Repukes refuse to sit a Dem senator based on trumped-up charges with no day in court. And so you say:



Right?

Careful what you wish for.

Not contradicting you, asking whether there's a rule for rounding.