- Chris Matthews I believe made an interesting point in favor of Angus King's Senate reform goals. He talked about ideological rankings of the Senate and how a lot of moderates are gone now and it's a lot more starkly conservative and liberal (as are the parties). Not new news by any means. But it's important context for the filibuster. The filibuster is built for an institution with large ideological overlaps and moderates that broker agreements. That's not the modern Senate.
- Someone on C-Span I believe mentioned that Nate Silver's insights about the polls actually, in retrospect, were true in 2004 too. Maybe Nate Silver himself has pointed this out but I started following him relatively late and this is the first I heard of it. In 2004 the Kerry camp was hopeful based on early data because all the polls in all the swing states were so close leading up to the election - all within the margin of error. But if you took the Nate Silver approach of thinking about polls as multiple sampling from the same distribution you realized that the small but consistent lead that Bush had was - while in the margin of error of any given poll - statistically much stronger than pundits gave it credit for. Silver's (relatively obvious, when you think about it) way of looking at the polls is therefore not some crazy untested approach, and the math of 2012 in fact looks a lot like 2004.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Demos need to end the filibuster by changing the rules, at least on money issues and appointments
ReplyDeleteThe filibuster is to protect the minority. Just like the courts. Any other argument is ignorant of history. The US senate has been deeply divided many times, this is also not unusual.
ReplyDeleteBut there's a balance between protecting the minority and representing the people - there always is (after all, nobody is suggesting an 80 percent thresh-hold for the filibuster - so even proponents recognize this trade-off).
DeleteThe filibuster has become a tool that is actively used in a way it hasn't been in the past (largely for procedural reasons - nobody has to stand up with a phone book anymore). That's a reason to think about adjusting it.
Agree the Senate has been deeply divided many times. No one said it hasn't been divided, to my knowledge.
We've got lots of institutions to protect the minority. The filibuster. The courts. The bicameral legislature. The electoral college. The bill of rights. It's only the filibuster that has, in the hands of the modern Senate, obstructed basic business of government like passing governments. Its costs are outweighing its benefits and it's worth considering reforming it. And future generations facing future problems ought to consider reforming our reforms.
*like passing budgets
Deleteso you think the republican senator from Texas, or Oklahoma, or... is not representing his constituents? Obama received barely 50% of the vote, you want to silence 49.7% of the population. The filibuster stopped Obama, yes - but Obama is not the government.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you are talking about.
DeleteHow am I silencing 49.7% of the population?
When did I say they weren't representing their constituents?
Who said Obama is the government?
I have soft-pedaled the anonymous commenting thing lately, but it's more important with stuff like this. If you're going to spout nonsense, please at least use a consistent pseudonym.
The filibusters gives minorities a say, take that away, you silence them.
DeleteWhen did I say they weren't representing their constituents?
Quote:
"But there's a balance between protecting the minority and representing the people". Who aren't they representing?
Who said Obama is the government?
Quote:
"It's only the filibuster that has, in the hands of the modern Senate, obstructed basic business of government like passing governments.", I'll assume bills or budgets is what you meant. They stopped bills and budgets (not really the democratic senate does not produce a budget) that they and their constituents did not like. Again, that is their job. Bills are not government, hundreds or thousands die in every congress, government can run with only a handful of appropriation or budget bills, the republicans after a fight funded government. So they did not stop government. Bills have sponsors and proponents, the republicans stopped them. If you meant bills and budgets, I would like to hear your explanation. If not I'll assume you mean the sponsors and proponents. They are not government.
1. The Senate is different from Senators. It seems quite reasonable to say that every Senator is representing his or her constituents in their vote but the rules of the Senate prevent it from representing the will of the American people. "Will of the American people" and claims like that are clearly contestable phrases, but your confusion of any given Senator and the Senate of the whole isn't related to that point.
Delete2. First, the fact that the Senate doesn't propose budgets seems completely irrelevant to this question. They still vote on the damn thing. The problem is, once again, that they're not passing a budget that represents the will of the American people because a minority is holding the process hostage. In a Senate with more ideological cross-over and actual bargaining this may have made sense. In the current Senate it seems to me to make less sense. There's nothing set in stone about the filibuster. The argument is simply that a different rule would produce better results.
I'm deleting your next anonymous comment, btw.
Delete