,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD:
I think as the Democratic Party discusses the future of governance, it needs to address two major problems: the filibuster, and malapportionment of the Senate.
Both are serious problems and both, I think, actually could be solved by a single, simple rule change.
I think as the Democratic Party discusses the future of governance, it needs to address two major problems: the filibuster, and malapportionment of the Senate.
Both are serious problems and both, I think, actually could be solved by a single, simple rule change.
1/ But first, a quick rundown of both of these problems.
The filibuster, the rule that any senator can shut down debate of a bill and 60 votes are needed to end debate, used to only be used in exceptional cases, but now it's used on every bill for partisan reasons.
The filibuster, the rule that any senator can shut down debate of a bill and 60 votes are needed to end debate, used to only be used in exceptional cases, but now it's used on every bill for partisan reasons.
2/ Right now, the filibuster is Democrats' best friend because it blocks Trump's agenda in a GOP Senate, but from 2009-2015 it basically hobbled a sizeable Democratic majority from doing anything. And we were right to be concerned.
3/ If we win the WH and Senate in 2020, the filibuster will prevent us from enacting everything from the Green New Deal to universal health care to reversing SCOTUS' attacks on labor rights, and we may have to cram bits of our agenda into budget bills like the GOP did in 2017.
4/ Meanwhile, malapportionment of the Senate is going to get worse, as America gets more urban and the Sun Belt states get bigger while the Midwest gets smaller. By 2040, 2/3rds of the population will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate.
5/ Some political experts are worried that absent an urban/rural realignment, this means Dems will never control the Senate again. Even if that's not true though, it means some voters get way more power than others in Senate elections, and that will skew lawmakers' priorities.
6/ This brings me to my proposal that, I think, will solve both problems at a stroke.
Change the filibuster so that instead of cloture requiring 60 votes, it requires any group of senators representing a majority of the U.S. population.
Change the filibuster so that instead of cloture requiring 60 votes, it requires any group of senators representing a majority of the U.S. population.
7/ That means two things.
First, it lowers the threshold to end debate, meaning it's harder for individual partisans to blockade the Senate.
Second, it ensures that no bill can be advanced without representation for the majority of the population approving of it.
First, it lowers the threshold to end debate, meaning it's harder for individual partisans to blockade the Senate.
Second, it ensures that no bill can be advanced without representation for the majority of the population approving of it.
8/ The only challenge I can foresee is an Article I, Section 3 challenge, since some people might construe this as violating the constitutional mandate of "equal Suffrage in the Senate". But I don't think it does — every state still has 2 senators and 2 votes on final passage.
9/ I believe if Dems want the Senate to survive as a viable institution — and clearly we should all want that! — they have to think big but also think smart. A constitutional amendment isn't passing in this environment. But a Dem Senate could enact this rule change by itself.
10/ I want to hear a lot more from Democratic presidential contenders what their plans, if any, are to fix the Senate.
Because if not this idea, then we have to do SOMETHING. /end
Because if not this idea, then we have to do SOMETHING. /end
