What good is the filibuster anyway?

[pecksniff]

I have always wanted that rule abolished, regardless of who controlled the Senate at the time. It is nothing but a formula for obstructionism. There is a good reason why its most famous usages were by Southern senators blocking civil rights legislation.

 

[pecksniff]

N.B.: The filibuster is not in the Constitution, it is merely a rule of the Senate. The HoR also had an "unlimited debate" rule to begin with, but scrapped it when its numbers grew so large as to make that unwieldy.

 

[Cubantripod]

N.B.: The filibuster is not in the Constitution, it is merely a rule of the Senate. The HoR also had an "unlimited debate" rule to begin with, but scrapped it when its numbers grew so large as to make that unwieldy.

The framers didn't want a democracy, they wanted a republic. The constitution was written as a big compromise. Prior to the 12th amendment, the president and vice president were often from different parties to force compromise. The filibuster is the only thing preventing this country from full blown chaos.

 

[Sean Renaud]

They didn't even really want a Republic. People forget how close we came to making Washington a King. Just like when you set up your voting system so only white, male, land owners can vote what you WANT is an oligarchy regardless of how you write the history books.

I'm sure that to varying levels this is true of all countries but we do not teach American history. We teach American mythology. The way we WISH it happened not the way it actually happened.

 

[pecksniff]

The framers didn't want a democracy, they wanted a republic.

Well, they didn't write the filibuster into it.

 

[pecksniff]

They didn't even really want a Republic. People forget how close we came to making Washington a King. Just like when you set up your voting system so only white, male, land owners can vote what you WANT is an oligarchy regardless of how you write the history books.

Actually, that would be a republic -- that is, an aristocratic republic, like the Roman Republic or the Venetian Republic, or the UK de facto for most of its modern history.

 

[Cubantripod]

Well, they didn't write the filibuster into it.

They also didn't write the 12th amendment.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Actually, that would be a republic -- that is, an aristocratic republic, like the Roman Republic or the Venetian Republic, or the UK de facto for most of its modern history.

While you're not wrong that's kinda at the point where we're nitpicking. Like I truly hate it when people go and mention that we're a Republic not a Democracy. When we're talking about whether larger numbers should be defeated by smaller numbers.

 

[Cubantripod]

While you're not wrong that's kinda at the point where we're nitpicking. Like I truly hate it when people go and mention that we're a Republic not a Democracy. When we're talking about whether larger numbers should be defeated by smaller numbers.

The republic distinction isn't being nitpicky, it's a very valid argument. The electoral college exists for the reason that you want as much of a consensus as possible. A society where 51% can silence the other 49% is one step above mob rule and won't last long.

 

[pecksniff]

A society where 51% can silence the other 49% is one step above mob rule and won't last long.

A society where 51% can win over 49% is not.

 

[YDB95]

The electoral college exists for the reason that you want as much of a consensus as possible.

No, the electoral college exists because the Southern states wanted to preserve slavery as long as they could.

 

[Cubantripod]

No, the electoral college exists because the Southern states wanted to preserve slavery as long as they could.

No. Representation based on population, such as the House, was established in part because of the question of slavery. The electoral college would force politicians to visit different areas of the country and appeal to a larger electorate. At the same time, the framer did not favor direct election of the present because it was too much power in the hands of the voter.

 

[Dribble]

Any law...any judicial ruling...can be changed. Remember how the Republicans hated Obamacare? Yet...they refuse to change it while they had the ability. Why? Because good legislation always rises to the top. Shit...will disappear. The filibuster is ignorant.

 

[pecksniff]

No. Representation based on population, such as the House, was established in part because of the question of slavery. The electoral college would force politicians to visit different areas of the country and appeal to a larger electorate. At the same time, the framer did not favor direct election of the present because it was too much power in the hands of the voter.

AIUI, the original intent of the EC did not even evolve electoral campaigning such as you describe. The idea was that the electors, not in any way committed to any candidate, would assemble in Washington, scope out the most prominent pols, and pick the likeliest.

 

[BidudeinWi]

They didn't even really want a Republic. People forget how close we came to making Washington a King. Just like when you set up your voting system so only white, male, land owners can vote what you WANT is an oligarchy regardless of how you write the history books.

I'm sure that to varying levels this is true of all countries but we do not teach American history. We teach American mythology. The way we WISH it happened not the way it actually happened.

Whatever. Washington didn’t become King, did he? So the Founders did the right thing!

 

[BidudeinWi]

No, the electoral college exists because the Southern states wanted to preserve slavery as long as they could.

Ok.

 

[KeithD]

No, the electoral college exists because the Southern states wanted to preserve slavery as long as they could.

I don't think that's true. The Founding Fathers didn't, for one, support direct election (they didn't support all that many categories of citizens to be able to vote in the first place), but more to the point, the smaller states weren't agreeing to join the union at all unless they were given more protection in the balance of power. This was provided in the election of a president by adding in two votes (representing the senators) for each and every state regardless of population, which gives greater weight to the influence of the lower-population states.

https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

I'd like to see some citation for the slavery theory. Slaves couldn't vote at the time the Electoral College was devised, so what does slavery have to do with this?

 

[pecksniff]

I don't think that's true. The Founding Fathers didn't, for one, support direct election (they didn't support all that many categories of citizens to be able to vote in the first place), but more to the point, the smaller states weren't agreeing to join the union at all unless they were given more protection in the balance of power. This was provided in the election of a president by adding in two votes (representing the senators) for each and every state regardless of population, which gives greater weight to the influence of the lower-population states.

Because the lower-population states feared being overwhelmed by the higher-population states -- such as Virginia.

 

[KeithD]

Because the lower-population states feared being overwhelmed by the higher-population states -- such as Virginia.

Yep, what I was posting. The smaller population states then were Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut. Not any state south of Delaware. Not the slavery states (although there was some slavery in all of those states then too.)

 

[pecksniff]

Yep, what I was posting. The smaller population states then were Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut. Not any state south of Delaware. Not the slavery states (although there was some slavery in all of those states then too.)

Slavery just wasn't much of an issue in 1787. Abolitionism was new and marginal and hardly heard of. The FFs only addressed the question when they couldn't avoid it, e.g., deciding whether to count slaves for representation purposes.

 

[KeithD]

Slavery was in the north too. Benjamin Franklin had slaves. Alexander Hamilton not only had slaves, but he also was a slave trader for his in-laws.

 

[pecksniff]

Slavery was in the north too. Benjamin Franklin had slaves. Alexander Hamilton not only had slaves, but he also was a slave trader for his in-laws.

Not surprising, since he came from the West Indies.

 

[Champakian]

Obstruction is good.

It cools and tempers the temporary passions of the mob.

The mob was given the House and the States were given the Senate.
The Filibuster is all that remains of the original intent and as the late Senator Byrd (D) put it:


It [the Senate] is the saucer that cools the coffee.

 

[YDB95]

The Filibuster is all that remains of the original intent

No, it isn't, because it wasn't part of the original intent.

 

[Champakian]

You misunderstood the phrase is all;

the original intent of the filibuster.