Filibuster sentences to ponder

These data reveal that, in half of the Congresses over the past two decades, successful filibustering minorities usually represented more people than the majorities they defeated.

That is from Benjamin Eidelson in Yale Law Review, note that he is covering only 1991-2010.


"in half of the Congresses...usually represented more people than the majorities they defeated"

In my book usually means "a bit more than half", or otherwise you'd say "most". So this research is telling us that for half the Congresses slightly more than half the the time something happened.

Is that another way of saying that when you look at all Congresses less than half the time did the filibustering minorities represent more people than the majorities they defeated? And they've just tortured the data to get a soundbite that makes it sound the opposite?

They were marginal calls and filibustering had nothing to do with it. Reverse causality, senators resort to filibuster only when it might work, on marginal calls. It usually doesn't

However, likely the "majority side" represents larger numbers of Twitter followers.

Such is life in Trump’s asshole

from the pictures it looks like the black hole is a girl

Help! Help! The UK Brexiters like me are about to get massively cucked by the Remainers and the EU! Help!

Note to Fake Dearieme: the word is "Brexiteers". Your inability to mimic even short passages of British English is remarkable.

And the other thing you should note, fake dearieme, is that we British like being cucked. That’s why we voted for Brexit in the first place - we knew we’d end up with a big cuckolding by mommy and Donald Tusk and that’s exactly what we wanted. Really fake dearieme your knowledge of Britishness is pitiful.

Can I get cucked by Dinald Tusk too?

dems have larger, blacker cocks than cuckservatives tho.

It is true, I have to admit that the Presidents with the biggest cocks were both Dems: Obama and LBJ.

The filibuster is a relic and should be tossed out with the rubbish, alongside Dick Cheney, Mark Foley and Kris Kobach.

People call me a relic too but that hasn’t stopped me!

Such is life innTrump's America.

Wow, they scan the Yale Law Journal and upload the image? Do those guys know how a computer works?

Gibberish. Senators represent STATES, not people. Every state has equal representation in the Senate. Hence any filibustering minority represents less than half the states. This minority is even smaller if both senators from the same state are in the minority.

The composition of the Senate and Electoral college was a DELIBERATE design by the Founders. You don't have to like that plan, but you have to accept what it does and why it does it. Constant references to people are denial.

The founders set up a group of small eastern states. When later legislators let in large western States they were gaming that system. You don't think they knew Texas was much bigger than Delaware even then?

You want gibberish, it is that the Senate composition from 13 to 50 states was designed, scalable, uniform, or sensible.

Trump: "Texas is a vast state...a vast area. Towns are hundreds of miles apart. Most people don't know this."

It says,

usually represented more people

State-based representation is idiocy anyway.

That’s what cuck Democrats believe.

"Cuck" is one of those words which, when used in a comment, marks the user as an imbecile with nothing to say.

Mostly true, but like a broken clock it does come in handy about twice a day

Although you probably know more about having a broken cock than a broken clock.

The state is where power lies. They grant power to the federal government. Why would it be odd for each state to have equal representation?

It's odd because the states, most of which are in fact creations of the federal government, are nothing but arbitrarily defined geographic areas. They don't have well-defined conflicting interests as states.

The whole fairy tale you repeat is nonsense.

By that silly logic, all nation-states are nothing but arbitrarily defined geographic areas too and on that basis one could easily argue that, say, most of Canada might as well be absorbed into the U.S.

States are not formed by the federal government. They existed as territories, already named, and were let into the union. The constitution acknowledges that all rights not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states.

Bwahahaha. Completely made up, imaginary geographic boundaries don't elect representatives, and they don't have interests to represent.

Despite both being American, one Texan is not the same as one Californian and their different political identities are more significant than the ones that identity politics harps on.

The Senate's problem isn't the filibuster, it's tyranny by the minority. Today, the percentage of the population required to elect a Senate majority has never been smaller, and is now down to just 17 percent of Americans. On the flip side, a majority of the country’s population is represented by just 18 senators. The Senators who confirmed Justice Kavanaugh represent just 44% of the population. Is this a problem? If the legitimacy of our government is considered important. Now, here at MR, anything that brings into doubt the legitimacy of government may be considered a feature rather than a bug. An argument in favor of minority government is that it is more likely to protect the rights and liberties of the minority. But what if, instead, thet minority imposes upon the majority restrictions on the rights and liberties of the majority? Is that a feature or a bug?

Senators represent state governments, not state populations, which already have representation in the House. The 17th Amendment should be repealed to make the connection between senator and state governing interests clearer and firmer.

True enough. The amendment, adopted in 1913, merely created an illusion of greater democracy. An honest contrarian. How rare.

It is the prerogative of a democracy to determine the bounds and practices of that democracy. This is precisely what "rule by the people", i.e. democracy, means. When multiple democracies affiliate, as is the case under our federal Constitution, they reach rules, agreed upon as equal democratic bodies, as to how this affiliation will be conducted. Bicameralism, the Senate, and even the Supreme Court are a product of such deliberation and compromise. To cast this aside would be to violate the contract that forms the basis of our 50 democracies; just think about that, America loves democracy so much, we have 50 of them! Very equitable, diverse, and egalitarian, too, they all meet as equals. By all means, feel free to tear up this agreement.

I would submit that the real tyranny of the minority lies with the societal gatekeepers.

Every single Supreme Court justice has a Yale or Harvard pedigree. Every major journalist has DC/NYC pedigree. The single most common alma mater in the Senate is Harvard and the majority of the Senate went to a top 50 university. And, of course, the only presidential candidate without an Ivy pedigree this century was John McCain ... who just happened to go to an Ivy feeder prep school.

The truth is, of the 10 largest states by population, Trump won 7 while Romney won 5. Of the 10 smallest states, Clinton won 4.75 while Obama won 5.

In a nutshell, the only real "problem" for Democrats under these situations is that they have overachieved in California and possibly New York. A simple solution would be opt for the Maine solution and split California. Or the DNC could push a national policy that plays just a bit better in, take your pick, Appalachia, the Great Lakes region, or the sun seeking retirees. It is pretty simple to have a Democratic party that gets an electoral college advantage, it is virtually impossible to change the "meritocracy" so more than few thousand individuals have access to the real levers of power.

The senate is an archaic accident, that is undemocratic and should be abolished or made proportional to population

Comments for this post are closed