Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Is one that I voted against last year, but am now open to voting for in 2024: Kyrsten Sinema:
Kyrsten Sinema doesn’t really fit in with her fellow Senate Democrats. Don’t even ask her whether she watches the Democratic presidential debates.
“I’m not missing anything. I prefer happiness,” Sinema declares in a 25-minute interview, a rare extended conversation with an outlet not based in Arizona. “Look how happy I am.”
And she drops a nuclear bomb on the Democrats pushing to get rid of the filibuster:
“They will not get my vote on [nuking the filibuster],” Sinema said in her office, outfitted with shiny leather and translucent chairs and boasting a vivid shade of purple that pops from the walls. “In fact, whether I’m in the majority or the minority I would always vote to reinstate the protections for the minority. … It is the right thing for the country.”
By that standard, there are a lot of Dem mavericks -- maybe the majority. I don't really want to get rid of the filibuster; I'd rather get rid of the openly and obsessively obstructionist Party of Trump that makes some Dems think we need to.
Sinema actually seldom votes with the GOP on key issues. Her 2018 rating from the American Conservative Union was a 19, while her lifetime rating is about 14. For comparison, John McCain's lifetime rating was 81, while Jeff Flake was rated 93. They haven't come out with the 2019 ratings yet, so those are from when Sinema was still in Congress, but I'm going to guess that she will probably be in the teens again.
The filibuster permits a minority which feels very strongly opposed to something to delay the passage of a measure long enough to communicate how strongly they feel and how wrong they think it would be to impose this measure on the nation.
It is not intended to be a veto, although that's what it has in effect become in recent years. Properly used, the filibuster allows a strongly committed minority to delay a vote on a matter for as long as they are willing to talk non-stop and as long as a sufficient number of their colleagues are willing to let them continue talking.
Sometimes the filibusterers eventually feel they've spoken long enough to get their point across to their colleagues and to the public (and that if they continue they'll do more harm than good to their cause), they stop, and a vote is taken. For example, in 2010 Bernie Sanders delivered an 8 1/2 hour speech opposing the tax cut deal Barack Obama worked out with the Republicans which extended the tax cuts George W. Bush had obtained for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. (If you have 8 1/2 hours to spare, here's a link to a video of it. It's also available in book form for those who prefer reading to video-watching.)
Other times, those favoring the legislation realize it's taking too much time and there really are some opposition points worth considering and if the opposition feels this strongly maybe it would be better to wait or to try to work out some compromise, and the matter gets put off so they can move on to other business.
I'm personally in favor of the filibuster, even though it has most often been used to delay things I support, because I think it is important that when we pass important legislation that there is widespread agreement rather than a narrow majority imposing its way on a minority. But an important part of the filibuster has to be an actual willingness of people who want to block progress to actually take the time to speak continuously -- and to be seen speaking continuously, so the public can realize what they've done and judge them by it, either positively or negatively.
And if a majority favors something and wants it passed, it's likely to be a negative judgement. That means the person engaging in a filibuster may be risking their political future. And if a cause is so important that a person is willing to risk their political future, that communicates an important message to the public.
That, to me, is an essential part of the filibuster. And that's something which has been missing in recent uses of the filibuster. The obstructionists simply threaten to filibuster and the legislation gets pushed aside, with no actual continuous speech -- no actual visible action which the public can see and judge -- no real commitment on the obstructionists part, simply a cheap tool they use for obstruction.
I agree with Bernie Sanders on this. Like Kirsten Sinema, he opposes ending the filibuster. But he wants to restore it to the way it's supposed to work. It's a tool for making it clear how strongly you feel about a matter. It's a tool for making it clear to the public there is strong opposition to something and it might be better to re-think the policy. It's a tool for delaying things in case people are willing to consider additional compromises to move things along a bit faster. But it's a communication tool, not a veto power -- and it's a communication tool which is supposed to require a strong commitment on the part of the persons using it. If the users aren't willing to make that commitment to put themselves out there and to keep talking, the filibuster should be considered over and the vote should proceed.
I'm personally in favor of the filibuster, even though it has most often been used to delay things I support, because I think it is important that when we pass important legislation that there is widespread agreement rather than a narrow majority imposing its way on a minority.
But the counter position (that X should not pass) is also important by extension. If doing X is important, maintaining Y instead is just as important a decision. Why should we prioritize the less popular policy positions?
The filibuster doesn't do that, at least not when used properly. It allows the minority to be heard, and it allows the majority to proceed after the minority has been heard if it still chooses to do so.
It is currently being used as a veto power, which does prioritize the less popular position. That should be stopped. But that's a problem with the current misuse of the filibuster system (by not requiring the filibusterers to actually deliver a filibuster) -- not with the filibuster system itself.
The filibuster doesn't do that, at least not when used properly. It allows the minority to be heard, and it allows the majority to proceed after the minority has been heard if it still chooses to do so.
It is currently being used as a veto power, which does prioritize the less popular position. That should be stopped. But that's a problem with the current misuse of the filibuster system (by not requiring the filibusterers to actually deliver a filibuster) -- not with the filibuster system itself.
That doesn't mean the system we have will always achieve that. But having a (properly-used) filibuster option as part of the system increases the chances that important measures which don't have widespread agreement will at least be delayed long enough to be more thoroughly considered and will often be postponed and worked on until there is more genuine agreement that it's the right thing to do (or until enough people who initially favored it come to realize it's not the right thing to do and a better way forward is found).
That doesn't mean the system we have will always achieve that. But having a (properly-used) filibuster option as part of the system increases the chances that important measures which don't have widespread agreement will at least be delayed long enough to be more thoroughly considered and will often be postponed and worked on until there is more genuine agreement that it's the right thing to do (or until enough people who initially favored it come to realize it's not the right thing to do and a better way forward is found).
Quite possibly, yes. It's fairly common in any majority vote system that there will be policies which are opposed by the majority.
It is mathematically impossible to construct any majority vote system which guarantees the outcome of voting will be approved by the majority. Some majority vote systems are better, some majority vote systems are worse, but none can guarantee that the outcome of voting will be what the majority wants. For any majority vote system you can construct, it is always possible for there to be situations where whatever the outcome of the vote is a majority would have preferred a different outcome. (I can demonstrate that for you if you need to see some examples; or you can look up and read Robin Farqharson's Theory of Voting, which explains it fairly simply, and Kenneth Arrow's Social Choice and Individual Values, which explains it in a much messier manner.)
The aim, then, is not to guarantee that the outcome of every vote is what the majority wants, because that's impossible. The aim is to create a system where as often as possible most people feel comfortable with (or at least feel willing to live with) what has been decided and as few times as possible where there is passionately strong opposition to what has been decided.
Including a filibuster in the voting process can be helpful in achieving that. In a well-constructed filibuster system there is a cost for using it (both the physical cost of speaking continuously for a long stretch and the political cost of being seen delaying the vote on a measure which a majority supports) so it won't be used casually -- which makes it more meaningful on the rare occasions when it does get used. That helps the majority appreciate that this is something a minority sincerely feels a very strong concern about.
The majority may still decide to proceed after the minority has had it's chance to express it's strong concern; indeed, that's the usual outcome. But if the minority concerns have merit there's a good chance that measures will be taken to help meet those concerns. Imposing policies which are strongly opposed leads to problems down the road, so a tool which helps identify those policies and helps delay their implementation is useful to a healthy democratic process.
Quite possibly, yes. It's fairly common in any majority vote system that there will be policies which are opposed by the majority.
It is mathematically impossible to construct any majority vote system which guarantees the outcome of voting will be approved by the majority. Some majority vote systems are better, some majority vote systems are worse, but none can guarantee that the outcome of voting will be what the majority wants. For any majority vote system you can construct, it is always possible for there to be situations where whatever the outcome of the vote is a majority would have preferred a different outcome. (I can demonstrate that for you if you need to see some examples; or you can look up and read Robin Farqharson's Theory of Voting, which explains it fairly simply, and Kenneth Arrow's Social Choice and Individual Values, which explains it in a much messier manner.)
The aim, then, is not to guarantee that the outcome of every vote is what the majority wants, because that's impossible. The aim is to create a system where as often as possible most people feel comfortable with (or at least feel willing to live with) what has been decided and as few times as possible where there is passionately strong opposition to what has been decided.
Including a filibuster in the voting process can be helpful in achieving that. In a well-constructed filibuster system there is a cost for using it (both the physical cost of speaking continuously for a long stretch and the political cost of being seen delaying the vote on a measure which a majority supports) so it won't be used casually -- which makes it more meaningful on the rare occasions when it does get used. That helps the majority appreciate that this is something a minority sincerely feels a very strong concern about.
The majority may still decide to proceed after the minority has had it's chance to express it's strong concern; indeed, that's the usual outcome. But if the minority concerns have merit there's a good chance that measures will be taken to help meet those concerns. Imposing policies which are strongly opposed leads to problems down the road, so a tool which helps identify those policies and helps delay their implementation is useful to a healthy democratic process.
I really don't think you are comprehending my point.
Every day a policy is delayed because something other than a simple majority is required is another day that the minority view receives their policy preference.
On every single policy. Not that it can happen. It does happen every time.
ETA: I really don't understand how someone thinking super majority is good gets around the issue that it actually implements the inverse: a group smaller than both the supermajority and the majority gets their competing policy in place.
Every day a policy is delayed because something other than a simple majority is required is another day that the minority view receives their policy preference.
And any day a policy is enacted immediately is likely also a day in which a minority received their policy preference. Because -- as I've been trying to explain, and you apparently still don't understand -- majority vote and majority rule are not the same. There is no voting system under which the outcome of the vote is guaranteed to be what the majority of people wants. Regardless of which voting system one sets up -- simple majority, 2/3 majority, ranked choice, approval voting, whatever -- it is quite possible (and, in a large and complex society such as a nation of 300 million people, very likely) that whatever the outcome of a vote, a majority would have preferred a different outcome.
So our aim should not be to make decisions as quickly as possible, which is what you seem to want. Our aim should be to have a system which enables us to reach a better understanding of what the others in our society want (and don't want) and find better ways of doing things which maximize the number of people who will be comfortable with what we'll be doing and minimize the number of people who'll be passionately upset by what we'll be doing.
An outcome which allows us to coexist harmoniously even when we don't get exactly what we wanted, and which allows us to move forward together gradually but steadily toward that better future we want, is much more desirable than an outcome which lets us move quickly toward an outcome which leaves us bitterly divided and unable to live together peacefully.
Tools such as the filibuster, properly used, are helpful in that regard. They help us slow down when it's good to go slower. Faster is not always better.
And any day a policy is enacted immediately is likely also a day in which a minority received their policy preference. Because -- as I've been trying to explain, and you apparently still don't understand -- majority vote and majority rule are not the same. There is no voting system under which the outcome of the vote is guaranteed to be what the majority of people wants. Regardless of which voting system one sets up -- simple majority, 2/3 majority, ranked choice, approval voting, whatever -- it is quite possible (and, in a large and complex society such as a nation of 300 million people, very likely) that whatever the outcome of a vote, a majority would have preferred a different outcome.
So our aim should not be to make decisions as quickly as possible, which is what you seem to want. Our aim should be to have a system which enables us to reach a better understanding of what the others in our society want (and don't want) and find better ways of doing things which maximize the number of people who will be comfortable with what we'll be doing and minimize the number of people who'll be passionately upset by what we'll be doing.
An outcome which allows us to coexist harmoniously even when we don't get exactly what we wanted, and which allows us to move forward together gradually but steadily toward that better future we want, is much more desirable than an outcome which lets us move quickly toward an outcome which leaves us bitterly divided and unable to live together peacefully.
Tools such as the filibuster, properly used, are helpful in that regard. They help us slow down when it's good to go slower. Faster is not always better.
If the choice is simply between "A" or "not A" or between candidate "A" or candidate "B" then your assertion is not correct. Voting theory only comes into play when the choices are more complicated than that.
So our aim should not be to make decisions as quickly as possible, which is what you seem to want. Our aim should be to have a system which enables us to reach a better understanding of what the others in our society want (and don't want) and find better ways of doing things which maximize the number of people who will be comfortable with what we'll be doing and minimize the number of people who'll be passionately upset by what we'll be doing.
But if a simple majority realizes some new problem exists, the status quo had zero consideration of what people were comfortable with. Even if they have done little debate, it seems like their proposal posses a greater quantity of the thing you value than the status quo.
Theoretically, yes, if there are only two choices then one will be the preference of a majority. But in real life it's very hard to limit things to two choices. For instance, even if there are only 2 candidates it's quite possible a majority would prefer neither. In order for one to be the "majority" choice you have to exclude that possibility.
But there aren't really only two candidates. That's an artificial thing we do in the US to make it seem like we're choosing someone who's the majority choice. We do it by primaries that get it down to two choices. But the fact that only two candidates are on the ballot at the end doesn't mean there are actually only two choices that people might want.
For instance, imagine a country with a 2-party system, pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. There are 30 people in the electorate, and I'll show you their voting preferences in this spoiler box [to keep it from taking up too much space] so you can count the votes for yourself for any given match-up.
There are 15 Democratic voters, and they fall into 5 groups.
First, there are seven Democratic voters who have Hillary Clinton as their first choice and Bernie Sanders as their second choice, Ann Coulter as their third choice, with Donald Trump their least preferred choice. Then there are three Democratic voters who have Hillary Clinton first and Bernie second, but they can't stand Ann Coulter -- they'd even prefer Donald Trump to her.
There are three voters who like Bernie Sanders best, Hillary Clinton second, Ann Coulter third, and Donald Trump as their least favorite. There's one voter who likes Bernie best, Clinton second, Trump third, and Ann least. And there's one voter who likes Bernie best but hates Clinton. He'd even rather have Ann Coulter (second choice) or Donald Trump (third choice) before he'd vote for Clinton (last choice).
7 voters have preferences C-B-A-D
3 voters have preferences C-B-D-A.
3 voters have preferences B-C-A-D
1 voter has preferences B-C-D-A
1 voter has preferences B-A-D-C
There are also 15 Republican voters. Five of them have Donald Trump as their first choice and Ann Coulter as their second choice, Bernie Sanders as their third choice and Hillary Clinton last. Four of them have Donald first and Ann second, but they'd rather have Clinton than Bernie. (He's a socialist!) And there's one who's a total misogynist, can't stand the idea of a woman being president -- so his preference is Donald first, Bernie second, Ann third, and Clinton last.
Lastly, there are two Republicans who like Ann Coulter best, Donald Trump second. Bernie third and Clinton last, and three who like Ann best, Donald second, Clinton third, and the socialist dead last.
5 voters have preferences D-A-B-C
4 voters have preferences D-A-C-B
1 voter has preferences D-B-A-C
2 voters have preferences A-D-B-C
3 voters have preferences A-D-C-B
One party has a primary with two candidates, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. C wins, and goes up against the other party's candidate, Donald Trump, who defeated Ann Coulter in their party's primary. C goes up against D in the general election, and D is preferred to C by a majority of the electorate.
Does that mean a majority of people want D to be president? No! A majority of the electorate actually prefer A to D. They only got stuck with D because they were denied that choice by the results of the Republican primary ...
And A isn't actually the majority choice either. If the voters had been given a choice between A and B, they would have chosen B.
And B isn't actually the majority choice either. If the voters had been given a choice between B and C, a majority would have chosen C...
Whichever candidate wins, a majority would have preferred a different one if they'd been given that choice.
That's a key problem when trying to work together as groups. Individual preference orderings can generally be assumed to be neatly transitive -- if A is preferred to B and B is preferred to C and C is preferred to D, then A is preferred to D. But when you combine individual preference orderings into a group preference ordering, that no longer holds true.
And the more choices there are, the more likely is that there is no true majority choice. You can arrange a voting system to name someone as the majority choice, but that doesn't mean that person really is the majority choice. It's very likely a majority of people will not actually be happy with that outcome and would have preferred a different one. Only by pretending that there are only two choices can you create the fiction that there was a majority choice.
As you pointed out:
Voting theory only comes into play when the choices are more complicated than that.
But that's the thing about real life: it is more complicated than that. I can't think of a single important decision facing the United States during my lifetime where there were only two choices.
Theoretically, yes, if there are only two choices then one will be the preference of a majority. But in real life it's very hard to limit things to two choices. For instance, even if there are only 2 candidates it's quite possible a majority would prefer neither. In order for one to be the "majority" choice you have to exclude that possibility.
If you're talking about candidates for office, that's a trivial truth -- no need for any esoteric theory. If you're talking about the business of governing, when a bill is introduced or a candidate nominated for a position, there are only two choices, yes or no, and in our representative democracy the majority rules.
I tend to think that the proper place for feats of endurance in a democracy is as far away from deliberative legislative bodies as we can get them. We might as well settle parliamentary questions with arm-wrestling contests.
The filibuster is almost uniquely stupid, in a political system full of face-palm worthy stupidities. It's an unforeseen result of a minor parliamentary change in...1806? We could regard that as a happy accident, if we had any reason to. The senate has never been a representative body, the minority party formally representing no political or demographic minority. These are not minority concerns anyone who isn't a senator or party functionary ought to care about.
In reality, the senate has famously frustrated attempts to protect the serious concerns of political and demographic minorities. Strom Thurmond broke records filibustering the Civil Right Act. The US is about 12% black, so you might hope that there would be around 12 black senators, to protect their "minority concerns", which have historically been under severe threat. Instead there are 10...ever. In the history of the country. Well done.
People ought to be able to produce examples where the filibuster has produced more refined legislation if that's a real effect, but such examples are not forthcoming. In the current context, the effect of the filibuster, liberated of the mannered restraint of the past, is to stymie all legislation. Since reconciliation is a necessary feature of our legislative process, this leads to general congressional paralysis. The effect ultimately is to shift power away from a body that is increasingly (and understandably) seen as dysfunctional, towards the other branches of government.
And it's made all the more frustrating by the fact that this could easily be remedied by a simple majority vote, unlike all the other entrenched, broken features of our system of government. It's a bug that should have been patched as soon as it was exploited, 180 years ago.
But the filibuster is a whoopty-**** American tradition, and people are biased in favor of the status quo. Talk to someone from the UK, and chances are good that they'll defend the existence of their stupid ******* Dungeons & Dragons monarchy. I swear, our species will end up drowning in an inch of water.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
