« When it comes to defending Israel, even the mainstream Left is right wing | twirling fartknocker's Blog
If US Senate Were More Democratic, Democrats Would Hold Fillibuster-Proof Majority in 2009
Doing a little sorting of data readily found online*, one can see that,
by percentage of population, Democrats clearly represent over
60% of the U.S. in the Senate today, and yet they fall a few seats
short of holding an actual fillibuster-proof majority. Hence,
Republicans are over-represented -- and with the simple threat of a
fillibuster they are able to thwart the will of a clear majority of the
populace.
While one might appreciate the thinking of the founders in assuring that smaller states have stronger representation in the Senate than they do in the House of Representatives -- thereby preventing outright large-state bullying -- perhaps a more fair system might allot more than two Senators to a state such as California with 36 million residents and just one to a state like Alaska with not even 3/4 of a million people. Solid red Texas with 23 million would have more than the currently blue Montana with less than one million.
Of course, it would take a Constitutional amendment to modify this arrangement, and given the undemocratic nature of the Senate, and inertia and apathy across the nation regarding any structural changes to our government whatsoever, improvements seem unlikely on even a limited scale such as tinkering with the U.S. Senate.
In the meantime, Republicans, without much effort, can foil or water down any Democratic attempts at passing meaningful legislation in the Obama age, legislation that might socialize healthcare or massively invest in infrastructure such as schools and public transit, or significantly push our economy toward green technologies without it getting mucked up by Republican priorities like tax cuts, big business hand-outs, and warmongering. Of course, that assumes that Democrats would be interested or brave enough to make such radical moves in the first place if they were free of Republican constriction.
[*Data Worksheet]
While one might appreciate the thinking of the founders in assuring that smaller states have stronger representation in the Senate than they do in the House of Representatives -- thereby preventing outright large-state bullying -- perhaps a more fair system might allot more than two Senators to a state such as California with 36 million residents and just one to a state like Alaska with not even 3/4 of a million people. Solid red Texas with 23 million would have more than the currently blue Montana with less than one million.
Of course, it would take a Constitutional amendment to modify this arrangement, and given the undemocratic nature of the Senate, and inertia and apathy across the nation regarding any structural changes to our government whatsoever, improvements seem unlikely on even a limited scale such as tinkering with the U.S. Senate.
In the meantime, Republicans, without much effort, can foil or water down any Democratic attempts at passing meaningful legislation in the Obama age, legislation that might socialize healthcare or massively invest in infrastructure such as schools and public transit, or significantly push our economy toward green technologies without it getting mucked up by Republican priorities like tax cuts, big business hand-outs, and warmongering. Of course, that assumes that Democrats would be interested or brave enough to make such radical moves in the first place if they were free of Republican constriction.
[*Data Worksheet]
Advertisement
















The other half of the fight in the Senate, takes place through the mainstream media. Local news coverage is replete with Republican/conservative talking points - the latest being how the Republicans are being portrayed as if to be on equal footing in demographic numbers and political philosphy with the Democrats and Obama, thus giving the R's equal time if not most of the time on sound bites and news pieces; the latest being on how the Obama Administration really need to revamp all of the Stimulus package to its former self, which ironically Obama initially proposed, that of mostly tax cuts and infrastructure spending.
February 4, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Reid could have a 90 to 10 majority and he would still cave in every time the Republicans said "boo."
February 4, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink