Filibuster Reform Whip Count: Senator Tim Johnson signs on

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 20:16


More momentum for the filibuster reform whip count this evening.  Mike Lux has received word from Senator Tim Johnson's Chief of Staff that Senator Johnson is a supporter.  That makes an even dozen eleven members of the Democratic caucus supportive of a majority-rules Senate:

Filibuster Reform Whip Count
51 members of the Democratic caucus currently with a 100% chance of being in the Senate in 2011

(Whip count among Senators, both current and incoming, in tough election fights can be found in the extended entry.)

Take note of how three of the twelve eleven current filibuster reform supporters are members of Evan Bayh's Moderate Working Group, aka the Conservadems.  Those three are Mark Begich, Joe Lieberman and Jeanne Shaheen.

Additionally, two other supporters of reform are members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition:  John Kerry and Tim Johnson.

By comparison, among the original 28 Senators who stated they supported the public option back in May of 2009, there were only two Conservadems and one member of the Senate New Democratic coalition.  Thus, at the start of this campaign, filibuster reform actually has more conservative and moderate Democratic support than the public option did at the start of that campaign.  This is even though the filibuster reform campaign starts with only 12 11 supporters, while the public option campaign started with 28.

Support for reform is not just coming from the more progressive members of the Democratic Senate caucus.  And, as we found out on Friday, it as has the support of Dick Durbin, who is one of only three Democrats who could be majority leader in 2011.

Broad ideological support, and potential leadership support.  This campaign may be a longshot, but it sure is building a solid foundation.

Chris Bowers :: Filibuster Reform Whip Count: Senator Tim Johnson signs on
The 13 current and potential Democratic Senators in competitive elections
Voted to yes in 1995, countermanding statement since then (1)
Boxer (CA)

Voted no in 1995, no countermanding statement since then (2)
Reid (NV); Specter (PA)

(Note: In 1995, Specter was a Republican, and voted with the rest of his caucus.  Also, Specter's primary challenger, Joe Sestak, who I work for, also doesn't want to change it right now, but will "see about it")

Current unknowns (10)
Bayh (IN); Bennet or Romanoff (CO); Carnahan (MO); Fisher or Brunner (OH); Giannoulis (IL); Hodes (NH); Lincoln or Halter (AR); Marshall (NC); Meek (FL); Mongiardo or Conway (KY)

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Filibuster Reform Whip Count: Senator Tim Johnson signs on | 64 comments
What do the ConservaDems have to gain from (0.00 / 0)
filibuster reform?

I just don't see what they gain in terms of their power to be the king makers. I don't care what they say right now or say ever. I am thinking about their power.

Your chart does not seem to have much realism regarding vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Lieberman gains from the present status quo. With reform, he could not do what he did with the health care bill.  

perhaps they would gain though (4.00 / 2)
Under the 60-vote system they each are responsible for everything that happens. In a 51-vote system, they can be like the House, where ConservaDems can vote no when they feel like it but the bill passes. Of course if they really want to play hardball together they can block it in the House (see Stupak, etc.), but generally they can keep both sides happier by voting "nay" but having "aye" win. So, yes, Senate ConservaDems lose a little power, but perhaps gain a lot of safety/cover.

Anyway, that's my theory... Lieberman is a special case of course, I'm thinking more of a Lincoln or Nelson or Landrieu.    



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Well I gave you a 4 because that's a possibility (4.00 / 1)
But frankly , I don't see people wanting to give up power. Even a little bit. Also, right now, they possess extraordinary power given their position rather than a little bit. There is a reason why people were jokingly referring to Sen. Snowe as President Snowe. Part of it is that the President gave her this power to influence legislation, but part of it is that structurally each Senator due to the rules is given a lot of power under the present system. I suppose if they thought they were getting something in return it makes sense. But I question what that something in return is.  
[ Parent ]
and I... (4.00 / 1)
...bet you're right, just between the two of us.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
just a guess (0.00 / 0)
but i'd think because it would allow the conservadems to govern with the republicans on issues of importance to them. (this is what happened in the house on the fisa bills, paa and faa -- the house leadership used a majority of republicans and a minority of dems to pass the reactionary versions of the bills they favored).
[ Parent ]
They do that now (0.00 / 0)
indeed, they achieve far more conservative results in the Senate than the House.
[ Parent ]
Rather than contorted deductive logic based on psychoanalysis (4.00 / 1)
Instead of just assuming how people would vote based on my appraisal of their psyche and motivations, I plan to ask them how they would vote.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, it takes a PhD in psych to question whether (0.00 / 0)
 Lieberman and other conservative Democrats who have fucked us over in the past will now, when their power is on the line, suddenly not do the same. It certainly makes sense that if you ask them, as they did with Reid on health care, they will tell you the truth. Jesus, at least others tried to answer my question over power.  
[ Parent ]
By the way, I remember when there were all these running tallies (0.00 / 0)
with the public option. Based on those tallies, I assume we should just about be ready to pass the robust public option this week.  
[ Parent ]
They have short-term gains (4.00 / 2)
Given that Democrats are widely considered likely to lose seats, the Conservadems are more likely to control the 51st vote than the 60th vote.  Reducing the vote threshold retains the potential power to be king makers that was lost when Brown won in Massachusetts.  Now they just need enough Democrats to lose in 2010 so that the Democratic caucus has around a 53-47 majority.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
They had significant power when they were in the minority (0.00 / 0)
They were still part of the gang of 14 for instances. Plus this requires them to be stupid enough not to realize that this is for a cycle that will only last through until 2012 when the Democratic Senate numbers will almost certainly start to once again rise. But, I suppose one can argue they will be short sighted considering several of them will probably retire in 2012 like Lieberliar.  
[ Parent ]
Another thought (4.00 / 1)
Lieberman could be saying he's for it, secure in the knowledge that it hasn't got a chance of passage, just to burnish his stupid legacy.

It wouldn't be the first time.

That's a real possibility looking at who's against it.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
feingold? (4.00 / 2)
why do you have feingold listed as a "yes"? he has recently be reported to have made several statements in favor of the traditional filibuster (not the faux kind the dems are calling the republican threats).

i don't support this campaign -- i think it's both a distraction from real issues of importance to americans and a hypocritical power grab unlikely to be seen as legitimate if actually pursued. but regardless of my take on the campaign, it still irks me to see feingold's name up there as a "yes" if there is no confirmation of his position.

here are the recent counter references, i hope they are of assistancet:

Senate's arcane rule should go

I recently attended one of Sen. Russ Feingold's listening sessions at Washington High School in Milwaukee. While most of the discussion focused on the health care legislation pending in Congress, one questioner asked if Feingold would support repealing U.S. Senate Rule 22, which requires a supermajority of 60 senators to pass most legislation.

This is the arcane rule that has caused a political tsunami with the Senate election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts. With that election, the Democrats lost their already tenuous hold on the 60 votes they need to pass almost anything.

I was surprised that Feingold said that he opposes such a change. He told a story from his early days in the Senate when he was asked to keep filibustering by Sen. Ted Kennedy to prevent the Reagan administration from gutting the labor laws that were then on the books. Feingold went on to say that the founders of the nation understood the need to have a governing body, like the Senate, that could take its time deliberating.

Feingold responds to deficit woes at Tomah listening session

Feingold agreed with a speaker's frustration about filibusters and other tactics used to block legislation and presidential appointments. However, Feingold doesn't want to eliminate the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to end debate.

"You do want things slowed down - trust me," he said.

Feingold favors a return to a more traditional filibuster that requires senators using the tactic to remain on the Senate floor



Good luck with your "real issues of importance" (4.00 / 2)
As long as the filibuster is in place. I am sure they will do real well with the 60-vote requirement, as everything else has done with that requirement.

As far as Feingold goes, he voted for this change in 1995. That is why he was on the list. Thanks for the update. Since he is in favor of some reform, but not this sort right now, he will be changed to a maybe.

As far as this being a "hypocritical power grab," I suppose that is right up there with Republicans working to eliminate the filibuster, and proceeding to then filibuster in record numbers. And they are really paying a big political price for all that hypocrosy, aren't they?  Boy, I've never seen Republicans in worse electoral shape because of their hypocrosy!  They have just rolled over on all the "real issues of importance!"  What a price they are paying!

The country doesn't pay attention to process, and a 60-vote requirement to pass legislation is undemocratic and hurts progressives. That's the bottom line.

[ Parent ]
you're welcome (0.00 / 0)
thanks for making the correction. as for feingold's vote in 1995, you got a link?

re the 60 vote requirement, your argument might makes some sense if any good legislation had been blocked by a filibuster. since that hasn't happened, and no good legislation on our most critical issues has made it out of committee, it's a non issue.

you also might be interested reading more david sirota on your own blog:

Democrats and (thus theoretically) the progressive movement are in the policy driver's seat right now, and Republicans and the conservative/Tea Party movement are effectively locked out of power, at least at the national level.

Pretending this isn't true creates a reality that cannot exist without such manufactured illusion. Indeed, beyond the filibuster (which is circumventable in many cases), the only way Republicans and the conservative/Tea Party movement can wield power is through perception.


[ Parent ]
What about at the committee level? (0.00 / 0)
Presumably the rule change that reforms the filibuster will have to go through a Senate committee (unless they get attached as amendments, but how likely is that to be successful). Both Harkin's cloture reform bill and Udall's rules change bill have been referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The Democrats on the committee are:
Warner (VA)
Udall (NM)
Pryor (AR)
Nelson (NE)
Murray (WA)
Inouye (HI)
Feinstein (CA)
Durbin (IL)
Dodd (CT)
Byrd (WV)
Schumer (NY)
I assume we need 10 votes to pass a bill out of this committee of 19. We have Udall, Durbin, and maybe Pryor. Feinstein, Byrd, Inouye, and Murray voted down Harkin's change in '95. Dodd will be gone by 2011, so that's a wildcard. That leaves Warner, Nelson, and Schumer as potential persuadables. Maybe the Durbin-Schumer fight could be used to persuade Schumer to join reform. Either way, we need to flip some of those votes or no filibuster change will come through committee to the floor (unless anyone knows of some friendly Republicans...)
No committee (4.00 / 1)
The rule change is voted on by the full Senate on the first day it is in session in 2011.  No committee process.  This is single day, date-certain event.  Not like a normal legislative campaign.
[ Parent ]
I don't trust any count that includes Lieberman... (4.00 / 4)
For the healthcare reform bill, Lieberman suggested the Medicare buy-in for those over 55 in September and then in November shot it down after there was a trial balloon that it be a substitute for the public option. Majority Leader Reid even complained publicly about Lieberman lying to him.

The man is not somebody whose word means anything. And while the rest of these politicians are not as sleazy as Lieberman, I wonder how many would double-cross the public when push came to shove.

A lot ... (4.00 / 3)
And while the rest of these politicians are not as sleazy as Lieberman, I wonder how many would double-cross the public when push came to shove.

because we saw what happened in the Senate once EFCA and the public option had a chance to pass and be signed into law.

[ Parent ]
I don't trust Lieberman either (4.00 / 3)
But, fwiw, in this case, he has both voted for this in the past, and was the first co-sponsor of Harkin's legislation.
[ Parent ]
Who is the 3rd? .. (0.00 / 0)
And, as we found out on Friday, it as has the support of Dick Durbin, who is one of only three Democrats who could be majority leader in 2011.

I know the second is Schumer.  Is the third Reid?  Or is it someone else?

Its Reid (0.00 / 0)
He could still win re-election, however unlikely. And if he does, he will still be majority leader.
[ Parent ]
It's not unprecedented (4.00 / 1)
To replace a Majority Leader. Bob Byrd got pushed aside in favor of George Mitchell. Granted that was the result of a different kind of infirmity but I don't know that it is out of the question that Reid could be challenged. There has to be tremendous dissatisfaction among the Center-Left to Left.

I am still gobsmacked to know that Baucus was allowed to form the Gang of Seven turned Six and lock the Chairman of the Finance Sub-Committee on Health (Rockefeller) out of the room. Baucus essentially gave Kennedy a big FU by scrapping the HELP Bill before the ink was dry and announcing he was starting from scratch with an ad hoc group that before Hatch dropped out actually had a Republican Majority and no Progressive representation at all.

(Grassley, Hatch, Enzi, Snowe, Baucus, Conrad, Bingaham). Reid just let majority rule and caucus balance be thrown in the trash with all the great results we have now seen. If Harry just ekes out a narrow win I wouldn't be surprised if he has a lot more time on his hands for constituent services in 2011. After all Durbin was Obama's mentor and you would think Obama might want some sort of legislative record to run on in 2012.

[ Parent ]
This is why all of this is suspect in the first place (0.00 / 0)
While it is true that there are problems with the filibuster, the truth is that the real problem is in the nature of who is in office rather than just about the procedure.

What I mean is this: everything you write is absolutely true, which should tell everyone that this is about things the Democratic leadership wants to happen but with an excuse of being unable to prevent. I think the biggest moment of truth happened recently actually when the number shifted from 60 to 51 with reconciliation, and yet, still we found out that there were not enough votes for the Public Option. That tells me a lot of people were lying through their teeth. But, we are not suppose to realize that.

I don't see how the character issue changes with procedural changes.  

[ Parent ]
If Lieberman's vote matters it will be a NO (4.00 / 1)
You have t understand by now that Lieberman will NOT support change if it benefits the Democrats because then his vote won;t matter and he will lose power and importance.

It is always foolish to rely on him.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

I agree totally. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Greatest Generation Caucus (4.00 / 1)
One look at the confirmed "No's" and my reaction was "Man that's some old folk!"

Robert Byrd: b. 1917
Dan Inouye: b. 1924
Dan Akaka: b. 1924
Diane Feinstein: b. 1933
Herb Kohl: b. 1935

That's five of eight who with all the goodwill in the world are not going to be obstructing this forever.  

And if those oldtimers had any sense of responsibility... (0.00 / 0)
...they would have already found and supported a successor and acoomplished a takeover. That would have been good for their party, nd the people in general. Them dying in their seats will unevitably create a lot of problems and be a damaging disuption of legislative work. Really, with a lot of rspect, but I dunno what especially Byrd, who isn't able to fulfill his duties since a long time now, is still doing in Senate. Imho there should be forced retirement at 75 or something like that. Nobody is served well by a bunch of Alzheimer candidates clinging stubbornly to their seats!
[ Parent ]
What makes you trust them, this time? (4.00 / 1)
At least you keep trying.   I am so done with this group the only thing that could appease me right about now is mutiny.  
Still shilling for getting rid of democracy, I see. (0.00 / 0)
Tell me, what do you plan to do when the Republicans retake the Senate and are able to pass pretty much anything they want with a mere 51 votes?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
Supermajority are required now for democracy? WHo knew. (4.00 / 3)
Most elections in America don't even require a majority. One can win by plurality if there are multiple candidates. The house also requires only 50 percent. By your logic, none of these processes are democracies either.  
[ Parent ]
No, majorities are required for democracy. (0.00 / 0)
But the founders, being smart enough to distrust mob rule and having enough sense to recognize that democracy has to apply to everyone or to no one, they crafted the legislature so that in the Senate each state gets equal representation.  And because equal representation means that the rights of the minority must be respected, the rules were written to allow for the minority to make its voice heard.  It's a means of slowing things down and giving them adequate time for consideration.

Just because the Republicans abuse the filibuster doesn't mean that the problem is the filibuster.  The problem is that the GOP gets its way because the Democrats, even when in a large enough majority to give them a righteous legislative beating, continually accommodate them.  That problem cannot be solved by eliminating democracy, and the longer term consequences will be felt for decades to come.

But you know, it's interesting that you didn't even try to answer the question I originally put to Chris: What do you plan to do when the Republicans retake the Senate and are able to pass pretty much anything they want with a mere 51 votes?

Short term convenience must never trump long term good.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

[ Parent ]
Lord, there are two choices, you are ignorant or you are shilling (0.00 / 0)
This has nothing to do with the founders or the constitution. The rule is wholly one made up by the Senate. The sole rule required for the Senate is 2 senators from each state to address what the founders intended under constitution (structurally that already makes it undemocratic). The rest is made up artifice by the status quo to maintain that status quo. So feel free to lie as much as you want, but don't waste my time with this crap.  Let me return to a point- it is ironic that you are using an undemocratic body and processes to push your arguments that you are here because you care about democracy.  
[ Parent ]
Uh-huh. Right. No! You don't say! Really? No! You don't say! (0.00 / 0)
YAWN  I stopped reading after the name-calling in your reply's title.  Can you not answer a simple question?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
re: minority (4.00 / 1)
But the founders, being smart enough to distrust mob rule and having enough sense to recognize that democracy has to apply to everyone or to no one, they crafted the legislature so that in the Senate each state gets equal representation.

equal representation? what are you talking about?

now, a resident of wyoming has a lot more power than a resident of california

ther is nothing equal now

And because equal representation means that the rights of the minority must be respected, the rules were written to allow for the minority to make its voice heard.  It's a means of slowing things down and giving them adequate time for consideration.

'adequate time for consideration' isn't the same as 'preventing the agenda the voters voted from being passed'

[ Parent ]
You're kidding me. (0.00 / 0)
What part of equal representation in the Senate can you not understand?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
don't blame me for your math (4.00 / 1)
a wyoming's resident representation in the senate:

2/500,000 = 1/250,000

a california's resident representation in the senate:

2/37,000,000 = 1/18,500,000

1/250,000 is not equal to 1/37,000,000

[ Parent ]
don't blame me for your math (0.00 / 0)
a wyoming's resident representation in the senate:

2/500,000 = 1/250,000

a california's resident representation in the senate:

2/37,000,000 = 1/18,500,000

1/250,000 is not equal to 1/18,500,000

[ Parent ]
You keep thinking of the House. (0.00 / 0)
We're discussing the Senate.  Did you even take a civics class when you were in school?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
read my post (0.00 / 0)
I use 2 for both wyoming and california, if I talked about the house I'd use 1 and 53

read before you reply

[ Parent ]
Again, you're thinking of the House. (0.00 / 0)
We are discussing the Senate.  Go take a civics course and then we can discuss the issue.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
each state has 2 senators (0.00 / 0)
WY: 2/500,000

CA: 2/37,000,000

those two numbers aren't the same

[ Parent ]
Yes, good for you that you know that part of how the Senate is set up. (0.00 / 0)
Each state gets equal representation in the Senate.  I'm glad you understand that.  Your complaint seems to be that the Senate does not have proportional representation like the House does, but that defeats the purpose of a bicameral legislature.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
re: math (0.00 / 0)
Each state gets equal representation in the Senate.

you can say it however many times you want, it still isn't true

if we have the "equal representation" you say right now, than the numbers 2/500,000 and 2/35,000,000 must be equal

but they are not

you can twist it any way you want, but 2/500,000 is not equal to 2/35,000,000. it's basic math. no matter how hard you try the 2 numbers are not the same

[ Parent ]
Checks and Balances (4.00 / 2)
from the House and/or the White House will take care of the problem of a possible Republican Senate.  If there is a Repub trifecta, then that's what the people want, but then again, I think the people will be be none too pleased when they go after Medicare and Social Security which takes care of the problem of a Republican trifecta if the Repubs are that stupid.    
[ Parent ]
How so? (0.00 / 0)
Or do you really think that the GOP won't retake the House or that it can't bully the executive branch into doing whatever it wants, or that it won't retake the White House?  Let me ask you: would you have supported the GOP's attempt to eliminate the filibuster in 2005-2006 when all three branches of government were controlled by the Republicans?  Just answer yes or no.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
He thinks that if they do and do what they want (4.00 / 2)
then the people, the voters, will decide. Your problem seems to be despite using words like democracy you don't really believe in it.  
[ Parent ]
Lie. (0.00 / 0)
You advocate eliminating a piece of democracy and then have the unmitigated gall to tell me I don't believe in it?

Little bunny, you just lost whatever right you had to continue your participation in this back-and-forth of ours.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

[ Parent ]
I don't get it (0.00 / 0)
Democracy is Majority Rule.  On the other hand, the filibuster is part of the Senate rules, nothing more.  

Look at Britain.  The people elect the party they want to run the country, and they do not have all the checks and balances we have here.    

[ Parent ]
A lot of people don't, so you're not alone in that regard. (0.00 / 0)
Too many people on this issue can't see past their chronic-my-teamism-inflated noses, and it's clouding their judgment on the issue.  The Senate was designed to give each state equal representation.  This was done because otherwise, the more populated states would override the less populated ones all the time, and people would be underrepresented.  Because the Senate is a legislative body designed to give each state an equal voice, the rules were written so as to allow for debate sufficient enough to respect the rights of the minority.  Rules were put in place so as to prevent endless debate, hence the allowance of an arbitrarily set majority vote (originally 2/3, now 3/5) to shut down filibusters.

The problem here is not that the minority party is doing everything it can to slow down or block legislation.  It's that the Democrats insist on accommodation when they need to be using the power of their majority to pass vital reforms.  The filibuster is simply the excuse we're given to deflect criticism away from Democratic leaders, who refuse to hold discipline within their caucus and also refuse to keep promises made on the campaign trail.  The result of this scheme to deflect blame is a shortsighted and ultimately destructive quest to remove a vital part of democracy.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

[ Parent ]
States would be underrepresented (4.00 / 1)
but not people; they're not 1 to 1.  The Senate was built to equalize the representation of the states and allow for minority voices, but right now, the opposite of what you said is happening where smaller states have outsized influence mainly because of the filibuster.  

You said so yourself that the filibuster number is arbitrary so change it down to 51.  The Senate needs reform when the Republicans insist on a supermajority requirement on every single piece of Senate action, and by definition, a supermajority requirement on everything is not democracy where majority rules.

We can set up a system where the minority can have a voice, but in the Senate today, the minority rules.  How else would you explain Hatch's insistence that a 33-52 vote loss is the will of the Senate?    

[ Parent ]
This assumes the problem is with the procedure. (0.00 / 0)
It isn't.  The problem is a Democratic caucus that continually accommodates the Republicans at every turn.  That problem can't be solved by eliminating democracy.  And it doesn't explain how, without a filibuster-proof majority, the GOP was able to pass virtually everything it wanted when it held the majority status in the Senate.  Proponents of ending democracy never seem willing to address this.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
re: filibuster (4.00 / 1)
eliminating democracy.

50%+1 is democracy

eliminating democracy would be making 41 no votes carry more weight than 59 yes votes

[ Parent ]
No, it's tyranny by the slimmest of majorities. (0.00 / 0)
But you knew that already.  Do you only favor democracy when it's convenient to you?  How does that make you any different than Bush or the GOP?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
59-41 is the slimmest majority? (4.00 / 1)
no 50+VP yes to 50 no is the slimmest majority
[ Parent ]
Bush winning officially by (4.00 / 2)
500 votes is the slimmest of majorities too.  

If that type of logic is applied to Presidential elections, McCain wins against Obama 47-53.  McCain wins by filibuster!  

[ Parent ]
exactly (4.00 / 1)
If that type of logic is applied to Presidential elections, McCain wins against Obama 47-53.  McCain wins by filibuster!

yes, and if we eliminate that, we're eliminating democracy!

[ Parent ]
re: democracy (0.00 / 0)
on the one hand you say

getting rid of democracy

and on the other you say

able to pass pretty much anything they want with a mere 51 votes

how is 50%+1 undemocratic?

[ Parent ]
I already explained it. (0.00 / 0)
Go back and read my comments.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
no, you didn't (0.00 / 0)
I'm asking you, how is 50%+1 undemocratic?

you haven't answered that one anywhere

[ Parent ]
Yes I did. (0.00 / 0)
Go back and read my posts in this thread.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
[ Parent ]
no, you didn't (0.00 / 0)
if you had, you could do a copy/paste

so because you can't reply, you behave like a 2-year old

grow up, you're embarrassing yourself

[ Parent ]
Don't tell me what I did or did not do. (0.00 / 0)
If you can't be bothered to read what I wrote, that is your fault and your problem, not mine.  You got the explanation you asked for in my earlier posts.  It's pointless to repeat myself when my words are right there in black and white.

Take your own advice about growing up.  I reached adulthood some years ago.  Too bad you didn't.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

[ Parent ]
same for you (0.00 / 0)
you somehow want to make a point that 50%+1 isn't democracy but 41 having more weight than 59 is democracy

thing is, you can't really explain it because it's false

so what can you do? you say I explained it before

yes, and I'm 50 feet tall!

[ Parent ]
Filibuster Reform Whip Count: Senator Tim Johnson signs on | 64 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox