As far as the filibuster goes, I've always argued for what I call the "popular filibuster." Each Senator is assigned the value of the number of votes he or she won in the last election. Cloture can then be invoked with a simple majority of Senators who also represent 50%+1 of the total vote votes cast for of all the Senators in their last election. So, then you are assured of a majority of Senate as well as popular support for cloture. Tell me that wouldn't shake the Senate up a bit. I've never met a fellow Democrat or even a Republican who doesn't like the idea. Tonight, I'll test this against yesterday's vote. I'll let you know what I get. And, to think, my parents didn't know what I'd do with a political science degree.
Great idea, Chris. If you credit each Senator for 1/2 of his or her state's population, the 49 Senators voting to end the filibuster represent nearly 160 million people (based on the 2000 Census--no interdecadal redistricting allowed here at PolySigh). That compares to only 108 million people represented by the 47 Senators voting against. There you have it, democracy inaction.
Wow! You got some speedy supercomputer back there at PolySigh HQ. I'm glad to see my assumption was backed up by the data. I considered the 50% of state population approach, which is probably truer to the implied Constitutional intent for the Senate.
ReplyDeleteMy only goals in using electoral numbers were to...
A) provide a rolling update of popular input on various national issues as reflected in the election of 1/3 of the Senate every two years, and
B) push the parties and Senate candidates toward maximizing-- rather than suppressing--turnout, which is essential given the Constitutional duties of the Senate.
But, that's a bit of a stretch.