If the Dems Strengthen their Hold On the Senate, Will They Ditch the Filibuster?

notlongago

HR Heisman
Jul 28, 2012
5,440
2,673
113
Sometimes yes. But we’re also talking about stuff that enjoys broad support from the general population, like codifying Roe into law.

Just because an idea is proposed by one side or the other doesn’t mean it’s automatically a radical one. But that’s where we’re at now - kill any idea you don’t like and don’t make any attempt to find common ground.
You know as well as I that any effort that would require removing the fillibuster will not be one that "enjoys broad support"
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,289
18,017
113
You know as well as I that any effort that would require removing the fillibuster will not be one that "enjoys broad support"

I’m taking about bills or policy proposals. No idea what polling is out there about removing the filibuster.

I’d onboard to revising it however as discussed above.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
It should be majority rule and there shouldn't be an Electoral college anymore. Antiquated shit built to keep minorities down
There’s absolutely nothing magical about mere majoritarianism.

Why does the EU have representation of members as sovereigns? Can you find a tweet to explain to you why Luxembourg entered a political union with Germany on a basis that included more than mere population count for dividing power?
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,289
18,017
113
There’s absolutely nothing magical about mere majoritarianism.

Why does the EU have representation of members as sovereigns? Can you find a tweet to explain to you why Luxembourg entered a political union with Germany on a basis that included more than mere population count for dividing power?

This is another area where I agree simple majority rule isn’t entirely appropriate, but also that the electoral college as it currently functions, imo, no longer works as intended.

It shouldn’t be mathematically possible to elect the president based on winning I think, what, 10 states out of 50? Just getting California, Texas and New York gets you 1/3 of the way there; Fl/GA is another 50…
 

notlongago

HR Heisman
Jul 28, 2012
5,440
2,673
113
I’m taking about bills or policy proposals. No idea what polling is out there about removing the filibuster.

I’d onboard to revising it however as discussed above.
Im saying if they chose to remove the fillibuster, it would be for a specific reason (bill or policy). That reason would not have "broad support" and we both know it.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,289
18,017
113
Im saying if they chose to remove the fillibuster, it would be for a specific reason (bill or policy). That reason would not have "broad support" and we both know it.

Depends on the bill - I’d argue setting aside the filibuster to codify Roe would have broad support.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
This is another area where I agree simple majority rule isn’t entirely appropriate, but also that the electoral college as it currently functions, imo, no longer works as intended.

It shouldn’t be mathematically possible to elect the president based on winning I think, what, 10 states out of 50? Just getting California, Texas and New York gets you 1/3 of the way there; Fl/GA is another 50…
Looking at an electoral calculator I was able to reach 270 with the 11 most populated states. But they don’t seem to a very politically contiguous bloc.

I don’t see the system broken myself. 30 states voted for Trump, 20 voted for Hillary. Her popular vote margin is owed entirely to one state, with Trump garnering a popular vote majority amongst the other 49 states.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,289
18,017
113
Looking at an electoral calculator I was able to reach 270 with the 11 most populated states. But they don’t seem to a very politically contiguous bloc.

I don’t see the system broken myself. 30 states voted for Trump, 20 voted for Hillary. Her popular vote margin is owed entirely to one state, with Trump garnering a popular vote majority amongst the other 49 states.

Not broken per se, but it’s a problem that one party has lost the popular vote in all but 1 election since ‘92, yet elected 2 presidents in that time; and growing population imbalance as well as the current voting trends amongst the various demographics indicate that’s only going to continue barring a sea change in political support.

It’s likely for example, that Texas becomes a true battleground state, if not flipping blue based on recent election trends. There’s no indication California or New York meanwhile will flip red at the same time. Time will tell regarding Georgia. But the population imbalance is only going to continue where the population is concentrated in fewer states. Should we really be able to get to a point where fewer than a third of the states could feasibly elect a president the other states rejected?
 

notlongago

HR Heisman
Jul 28, 2012
5,440
2,673
113
Current polling on Roe would say otherwise.
1) are you conflating "majority" with "broad support"? How small does the minority need to be before you no longer consider it broad or otherwise significant?
2) AFAIK, there is no polling asking if one supports codification by way of fillibuster elimination
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
Should we really be able to get to a point where fewer than a third of the states could feasibly elect a president the other states rejected?
If that 1/3rd of the states had sufficient supermajority of population, yes.

Bush also carried 30 states to Gore’s 20 when he won the presidency without a popular vote majority.
 

globalhawk

HR Heisman
Dec 16, 2003
5,993
6,606
113
1) are you conflating "majority" with "broad support"? How small does the minority need to be before you no longer consider it broad or otherwise significant?
2) AFAIK, there is no polling asking if one supports codification by way of fillibuster elimination
You always do a good job of changing the topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
3,162
3,284
113
I am beginning to wonder whether the better question might be, if the D's lose control of the senate, will they jettison the filibuster (during the lame duck session)
 

MitchLL

HR Legend
Dec 26, 2018
23,056
37,053
113
Looking at an electoral calculator I was able to reach 270 with the 11 most populated states. But they don’t seem to a very politically contiguous bloc.

I don’t see the system broken myself. 30 states voted for Trump, 20 voted for Hillary. Her popular vote margin is owed entirely to one state, with Trump garnering a popular vote majority amongst the other 49 states.
The issue is States like Montana and Wyoming should not have the same power as California. Texas, or New York.

It's ridiculous how one Party can gain control and represent that way.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
The issue is States like Montana and Wyoming should not have the same power as California. Texas, or New York.

It's ridiculous how one Party can gain control and represent that way.
Should China have 250x the voting power of Singapore at the UN?
Would Singapore even want to be in a UN structured under a population based voting model, or are there reasons that governments sought a union on a more equal power sharing arrangement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn

MitchLL

HR Legend
Dec 26, 2018
23,056
37,053
113
Should China have 250x the voting power of Singapore at the UN?
Would Singapore even want to be in a UN structured under a population based voting model, or are there reasons that governments sought a union on a more equal power sharing arrangement?
Apples to Oranges.
 

notlongago

HR Heisman
Jul 28, 2012
5,440
2,673
113
I am beginning to wonder whether the better question might be, if the D's lose control of the senate, will they jettison the filibuster (during the lame duck session)
theres not enough current support for that. Sinema & Manchin are hard no's - probably Tester too
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
Apples to Oranges.
It isn’t.
All the reasons you can think of for Singapore to avoid a union on a purely population representative basis applies to small state concerns in joining the US.
We saw the exact same considerations play out in the formation of the EU, to prevent small states like Luxembourg from being plowed over by the likes of Germany and France.
 

globalhawk

HR Heisman
Dec 16, 2003
5,993
6,606
113
It isn’t.
All the reasons you can think of for Singapore to avoid a union on a purely population representative basis applies to small state concerns in joining the US.
We saw the exact same considerations play out in the formation of the EU, to prevent small states like Luxembourg from being plowed over by the likes of Germany and France.
It is different. Countries are treated different than states within a country. International relations and diplomacy play that totally different roles than domestic policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
It is different. Countries are treated different than states within a country. International relations and diplomacy play that totally different roles than domestic policies.
They are sovereign states who ceded specific powers under a specific power sharing agreement.
The reasons why small states don’t agree to cede political authority on a solely population basis is self evident. Anyone declaring ‘racism’ as the reason has to ignore the other examples because they shatter the narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gus is dead

globalhawk

HR Heisman
Dec 16, 2003
5,993
6,606
113
They are sovereign states who ceded specific powers under a specific power sharing agreement.
The reasons why small states don’t agree to cede political authority on a solely population basis is self evident. Anyone declaring ‘racism’ as the reason has to ignore the other examples because they shatter the narrative.
I believe in the electoral college as of now. However, we are a unique nation among democracies.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
I believe in the electoral college as of now. However, we are a unique nation among democracies.
No disagreement from me, but you should read up on the different layers and rationale for representation and power sharing in the EU.
Many ways to skin the cat, and I would consider none sacred.
 

Huey Grey

HR King
Jan 15, 2013
50,456
73,790
113
You guys act like it's not a forgone conclusion that the Republicans will control the House.
It's not. There are way too many variables this year. Abortion. Inflation. Who will actually turn out? Are the polls accurate? Depending on what you look at you can make a good case for either side winning. Problem is that we really have no idea which issue or circumstance will win out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83

globalhawk

HR Heisman
Dec 16, 2003
5,993
6,606
113
No disagreement from me, but you should read up on the different layers and rationale for representation and power sharing in the EU.
Many ways to skin the cat, and I would consider none sacred.
I don't think the EU applies to the USA. Much more difficult than all being the same citizen of one country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher

LetsGoHawks83

HR Legend
Mar 20, 2015
17,459
17,069
113
It's not. There are way too many variables this year. Abortion. Inflation. Who will actually turn out? Are the polls accurate? Depending on what you look at you can make a good case for either side winning. Problem is that we really have no idea which issue or circumstance will win out.

This... Which is why the "forgone conclusion" has flipped several times already.

Not much faith can be placed in the polls. Surprised that people put much stock in the predictions. Guess it's something for people to get excited about or deny, depending if they like the results of the poll :p
 

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
45,849
52,979
113
Ummm...if you think one party forcing through their agenda just to be undone when the other party takes over and that party forces through their agenda with a bare majority is good governance I have to disagree.
The Republicans have no agenda other than convincing Americans to make the rich wealthy.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,502
37,064
113
I don’t disagree, but I’m sorry, the filibuster as a legislative tool is broken when neither side accepts that compromise is not a dirty word.
I agree it’s abused but id rather have it as a check. Don’t want constant back and forth vacillating every 4 years. Frankly I don’t agree with what the D’s are contemplating shoving through if they ditched the filibuster. I wouldn’t like what the R’s would want to shove through either
 

globalhawk

HR Heisman
Dec 16, 2003
5,993
6,606
113
I agree it’s abused but id rather have it as a check. Don’t want constant back and forth vacillating every 4 years. Frankly I don’t agree with what the D’s are contemplating shoving through if they ditched the filibuster. I wouldn’t like what the R’s would want to shove through either
Filibuster is necessary. I prefer the show in person method though.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
I don't think the EU applies to the USA. Much more difficult than all being the same citizen of one country.
Their union is also the delegation of certain powers under a specific power sharing agreement, than is not based on mere majoritarianism, nor mere population.

The reasons are the same in nature, if not specifics, to more jealousy guard those retained powers and maintain a voice in matters of the whole.
 

Gus is dead

HR All-State
Aug 14, 2022
687
573
93
Biden has promised that if America gives him 2 more D Senators, he will make abortion legal nationally.

Pretty sure that kind of legislation doesn't qualify for reconciliation treatment. So that sounds like he expects the Senate to get rid of the filibuster.

How do you feel about that?

If the Dems ditch the filibuster, what other reforms would you like to see them enact?
This isn’t happening. No chance.
 

Gus is dead

HR All-State
Aug 14, 2022
687
573
93
The Republicans have no agenda other than convincing Americans to make the rich wealthy.
Uh huh.

Rule of law/safe cities.
Protected border with sensible legalized immigration.
Fiscal responsibility
Strong national defense and battle military free of woke social BS
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,289
18,017
113
Uh huh.

Rule of law/safe cities.
Protected border with sensible legalized immigration.
Fiscal responsibility
Strong national defense and battle military free of woke social BS

The party that blindly supports Trump is pro-rule of law...sure
The last time a GOP party proposed immigration reform...his own party killed it.
When exactly was the last time the GOP reduced the deficit?
When exactly did the Dems cut the defense budget?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
48,173
40,941
113
40
The party that blindly supports Trump is pro-rule of law...sure
The last time a GOP party proposed immigration reform...his own party killed it.
When exactly was the last time the GOP reduced the deficit?
When exactly did the Dems cut the defense budget?

Well Trump's command is law to them so . . . in that sense they are pro-rule of law.

Now are they pro rule of our existing laws? Only when it suits the Duce
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher