The Senate was not meant to be popularly elected, they were to be elected by the state legislatures until the 17th amendment. The change was made, in part due to corruption at the State level. The intent was to have one house of Congress which was deliberative and statesman like.
In the day of mass media promotion, and corporate/oligarchy of the wealthy selection of candidates, it might be wise to return to Senators chosen by state legislatures, but with a uniform rule that requires unanimous consent or at least super majority votes at the state level. This would help insure that Senators were more moderate and respected by all parties in the State houses. Then they could be more deliberative and reasoned in their work -- and totally free from fundraising and obligation to those who financed their campaigns.
Likewise the House should have one member for every 35,000 - 70,000 citizens as envisioned in the Constitution. They would not have to meet physically and could remain in their districts which would make them better connected to their real constituents, the voters, rather than the money bundlers and lobbyists who pay for the big campaigns today. They can meet and vote electronically and if they could only raise money from people in their districts, they would spend less time raising money and more time doing the work of the people. (Their staffs could be smaller and more responsive as well).
The current corruption comes from too much power in the hands of two few people.
If these two changes were made, then the Senate and House would be able to function as defined in the Constitution. We could then eliminate the Electoral College and choose our President by simple national majority (or plurality) and campaigns would have to focus on all citizens not just those in key states.
The filibuster is just an aberration of much deeper issues.
Districts should also be drawn to be as compact as possible, by impartial computer programming that is oblivious to political make-up of the district. Let the chips fall where they may, like minded people tend to live in the same communities.
It's an internal procedural rule, not a law. We also do not have a system for national referendum in the US, we have to convince our representatives or replace them to change US laws.
Since 2007 when Democrats took hold of the Congress the minority GOP has had 385 filibusters as compared to the total filibusters from 1919 to 1970 only 49. This is a disgrace to our democracy and the GOP needs to be repromanded harshly for 6 years of pure obstructionism, and the rules should change to the majority vote of 51. Go Senator Reid - get this done so we can complete some long overdue decent legislation. May the GOP continue to loose power as they lie, cheat, opress, obstruct,and dictate their will against the will of the Amercan people. The GOP are unfit for governance.
Harry Reid, get the law changed fast! We are tired of nothing getting done! If it weren't for the GOP stonewalling everything, this country could be in a lot better recovery than it is presently! They blocked jobs bill and then presented one of their own, which conveniently had the oking the XL Keystone pipeline ammendment tucked in at the last minute, so the President vetoed it. In 2010 they refused to extent unemployment just before Christmas unless the Bush tax cuts were extended too! The President gave in on that one. Then there was the farm subsidy bill (which I believe farmers should get if their farms aren't doing well caused by crop damage)that the GOP tried to sneak in millions in cuts to foodstamp program too! So that bill never went anywheres either! They will use any sneaky low-down tactic to get what they want or hold up everything and that needs to be changed!
It's not a law, it's a procedural rule. The filibuster has a purpose, to make sure the minority can avoid completely being ignored. I do think that having to stand and deliver, with no breaks, should be a requirement.
A minority is just that -- a minority. And a single senator, a minority of one, shouldn't be allowed to dictate what the other 99 cannot do. It's nice to respect the rights of the party not in power, but absurd when all legislature grinds to a half because one senator doesn't like it. At least make him stand up and talk.
mjvwsr "actually I don't think a single senator can stop anything". Actually any Senator can invoke a filibuster. That in effect stops everything without a super majority voting to halt the filibuster.
The changes begin considered do not stop the minority party from blocking the vote on a bill. If they want to filibuster, they can. They only make it so that it requires actual effort and is visible to the public who is doing it.
I for one wholeheartedly support the changes. Having any anonymous Senator able to stop the entire government from functioning by just sending a text message is wrong, and should be fixed.
I seem to remember that scene in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" where Jimmy Stewart was required to stand on the Senate floor and talk continuously to uphold the filibuster. That's the rule that needs to be changed back. Make the person stand there and talk until he/she can no longer talk. If someone else wants to take up the cause after that, then so be it. But this nonsense that you can just walk away and go about your business is ridiculous.
OMNIBUS66 says: "Our government no longer works for the people at any level. Major changes are necessary, but will not happen. Maybe it's a bad analogy, but the inmates are running the prison, and who's going to change it? Tea Party crazies, Gerrymandering, idiotic procedural rules, corporate lobbyists, and superpac money all serve to guarantee a permanently disfunctional government."
-----------------------
All so true leading to a completely dysfunctional congress with an approval rating in the toilet -- more like the inmates running the asylum!
"In recent years, the number of filibusters has risen dramatically; republicans launched more than 385 filibusters (that forced cloture votes) since 2007. That's compared to only 49 cloture votes from 1919 to 1970."
------------------
Absolute proof that the corporatist republicans are only obstructionists -- 385 filibusters in the past 5 years, or an average of 77 per year, compared to just 49 in the 51 years between 1919 to 1970, and average of less than ONE PER YEAR!
And we pay these jerks to accomplish nothing by obstructionism?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
In the day of mass media promotion, and corporate/oligarchy of the wealthy selection of candidates, it might be wise to return to Senators chosen by state legislatures, but with a uniform rule that requires unanimous consent or at least super majority votes at the state level. This would help insure that Senators were more moderate and respected by all parties in the State houses. Then they could be more deliberative and reasoned in their work -- and totally free from fundraising and obligation to those who financed their campaigns.
Likewise the House should have one member for every 35,000 - 70,000 citizens as envisioned in the Constitution. They would not have to meet physically and could remain in their districts which would make them better connected to their real constituents, the voters, rather than the money bundlers and lobbyists who pay for the big campaigns today. They can meet and vote electronically and if they could only raise money from people in their districts, they would spend less time raising money and more time doing the work of the people. (Their staffs could be smaller and more responsive as well).
The current corruption comes from too much power in the hands of two few people.
If these two changes were made, then the Senate and House would be able to function as defined in the Constitution. We could then eliminate the Electoral College and choose our President by simple national majority (or plurality) and campaigns would have to focus on all citizens not just those in key states.
The filibuster is just an aberration of much deeper issues.
Should have been -- (need post submission edit function)
The current corruption comes from too much power in the hands of too few people.
No more gerrymandering.
Should at least require an actual act of filibuster per classic description
Not or a secret source threat to do.
See description of congressional dysfunction.
I for one wholeheartedly support the changes. Having any anonymous Senator able to stop the entire government from functioning by just sending a text message is wrong, and should be fixed.
--------------
Yes, especially when that "monkey business" is more fund raising!
-----------------------
All so true leading to a completely dysfunctional congress with an approval rating in the toilet -- more like the inmates running the asylum!
------------------
Absolute proof that the corporatist republicans are only obstructionists -- 385 filibusters in the past 5 years, or an average of 77 per year, compared to just 49 in the 51 years between 1919 to 1970, and average of less than ONE PER YEAR!
And we pay these jerks to accomplish nothing by obstructionism?