OpenLeft: Democrats would gain 10 Senate seats by eliminating the filibuster

Democrats would gain 10 Senate seats by eliminating the filibuster
by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 20:00


A tweet spreading around the twitterverse today:



The Onion tweeted that back in September, and it remains funny because it remains true. With the 60-vote culture of the Senate, Democrats did not actually take control of the chamber until September 25th, when Robert Byrd was released from the hospital and Paul Kirk was sworn in. September 25th was the first day when Democrats had 60 functioning members of their Senate caucus.

The chances of Democrats maintaining 60 members of their caucus after 2010 are virtually zero. Democrats are defending seven of the ten Senate seats where the incumbent party is either losing or tied, and are defending all three of the Senate seats (Colorado, Nevada and North Dakota) where the incumbent party is facing near-certain defeat. To maintain 60, Democrats need to win all seven of the following "toss-up" campaigns: Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. That is a very, very tall order.

Still, there is a simple way that Democrats could net ten Senate seats right now, which would all but guarantee that Democrats actually have a stronger Senate majority in 2011 than they had in 2009: eliminate the filibuster. If only 50 votes plus Vice President Biden are required to pass legislation in the Senate, then even the (currently realistic) worst-case scenario of a 53-47 Democratic majority in 2011 is three seats better than the current 60-40 majority. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.openleft.com/diary/16820/democrats-would-gain-10-senate-seats-by-eliminating-the-filibuster

We only want to do away with it because it is inconvienient for us right now. If the democrats lose the majority they may want the fillibuster but would have done away with it themselves. I think we need a Congress that isn't afraid of the fillibuster. Let them blow hot air for a while. Who cares? We need a Congress willing to fight even if it means fillibuster.

The original intent of the filibuster was to slow down consideration of legislation so that more debate and persuasion could take place ... it was meant as a 'check' on hastiness in the world's "greatest deliberative body."

However, in its current form, the filibuster has become a requirement for a super majority for bills, appointments, resolutions, etc. -- it is a perversion of what it was meant to be.

In this country we believe in the rule of the majority; the old filibuster protected the minority in that it allowed them time to make their case, but in the end the majority still ruled. Now we have, in effect, minority rule and that is wrong.

We shouldn't play political games with the "what if" Democrats are in the minority again some day. The same principle should stand for everyone and we should all live by the consequences: if you get the most votes you win.

un-democratic and un-representativeness of the governmental set-up we are cursed with.

The Senate itself is the more blatant example. Wyoming is equal to California and New York. That really makes sense.

Other democratic nations get along without it just fine.

It was later that the rules the Senate wrote for itself allowed unlimited debate on a bill, about the late Nineteenth Century.

Under the Articles of Confederation, you did need a supermajority to pass any legislation. This caused a lot of hang-ups as important bills were constantly defeated or simply pushed back until enough votes were garnered.

More than two senators should retire. Maybe if we could clean house and get some real democrats in the senate we might get something done for the American people.