Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:24 AM Jan 2013

How risky is filibuster reform?

The main concern I have about filibuster reform is that the Senate is fundamentally an undemocratic institution. By affording each state 2 Senators regardless of the population of that state, it gives an unfair advantage to the rural and racist states. Most states are in fact generally red states. While right now filibuster reform will help Obama and the Senate has more often been Democratic than Republican, how confident are you that states like Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia will continue to have at least one Democratic senator? In fact, since Reagan the Senate has been Republican about half the time, and frankly in general Republican Senators are worse than Democratic Senators are good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How risky is filibuster reform? (Original Post) Onlooker Jan 2013 OP
Be squealing for the filibuster when no longer in the majority. Loudly Jan 2013 #1
As if Cosmocat Jan 2013 #2
the old way would still exist .............. Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #3
What is risky is keeping it. Keeping it will keep our government disfunctional. bemildred Jan 2013 #4
This post is conventional wisdom and wrong musiclawyer Jan 2013 #5

Cosmocat

(14,572 posts)
2. As if
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:46 AM
Jan 2013

the moment Mitch McConnell has so much as a 51 to 49 "majority" he would not change the rules anyways ...

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
4. What is risky is keeping it. Keeping it will keep our government disfunctional.
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:00 PM
Jan 2013

You cannot let one or a few people bring the government to standstill. Such a government is a useless burden.

musiclawyer

(2,335 posts)
5. This post is conventional wisdom and wrong
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:44 PM
Jan 2013

Yeah I expect the republicans to take full control of the senate one day and they WILL do the nuclear option. But by the Democrats doing it now, they creates space between themselves and the GOP eventual attempt at undoing. Assuming meaningful reform happens this month, the Democrats can actually pass good laws that will die in the House thus making crystal clear to the low information voter who is responsible for the gridlock. Right now both parties get blame because the senate is seen as dysfunctional too..... More importantly, without meaningful reform, Obama's second term is over before it starts. That's really all you need up know. That reform is the only chance at flipping the house is just gravy.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»How risky is filibuster r...