This whole line of reasoning in their part is just silly. Any kind of decision making institution has its institutional rules, and it so happens that in the senate you need sixty senators to force a vote. That doesn't make it less democratic. We can't change the constitution without a 67% vote... does that mean the process is undemocratic? It's a rule designed to promote some institutional stability - basically, it stops a simple majority from walking all over the minority. And I would argue that protecting the rights of the minority are as central to the idea of democracy as "majority rules".

Oops!

I think there is a bug in your methodology, Nathan. The US does not have a population anywhere near 301 million.

This must be because of the problem of allocating population figures for states that have split Senatorial delegations (both Democratic and Republican, or Independent in the case of Vermont).

What happens if we divide the populations of those states 50/50?

And shouldn't we count South Carolina's population at 65%, because Strom Thurmond isn't really all there anymore (smile)?

Geof-- I thought I made it clear that the numbers reflected two Senators per state, so the population numbers add up to double the population. But the percentages Dem and GOP would remain the same if you allocated half the states population to each Senator.

But Paul, I disagree that the Senate in any way has protected minority rights in this country, especially given its bias towards small white rural states. Without the Senate filibuster, we would have had civil rights legislation passed in the 1940s-- see my Remembering the Popular Will for Civil Rights which highlights how evil and destructive the Senate filibuster was in maintaining American Apartheid in the South.

So I am quite serious that I would love to see the filibuster abolished, especially if we link it to getting rid of the other undemocratic features of Senate representation as well.

I'll write more about this, but I believe that majority rule is ultimately the best protection for minority rights in a national pluralistic society.

I think you misunderstood me Nathan... I didn't mean to say that the Senate itself has ever protected minority rights. I was only saying that it's the rule that you need 60 senators to force a vote - the rule itself - which protects the strong minority position, within the context of the Senate.

But I completely disagree with the proposition that "majority rule is the best protection for minority rights". The whole genius of the American system is the delicate balance between political power - the embodiment of "majority rule - and invdividual rights, which are guaranteed in the first 10 amendments to the constitution. If you'll recall, those first 10 amendments were added precisely because some of the founders thought that majority rule, without some serious checks, was simply too dangerous. And they were right.

Getting rid of all these undemocratic or super-majority and over-represented features is simply a moot point. Senate rules can be changed, yes. All the others would require smaller states to surrender power voluntarily.

I counsel folks to save their ammunition for other winnable issues. But since filibusters are your concern, I suppose that has a shot. But can we provide the rationale that filibuster defenders would use?

I've never bought the argument that fighting for Senate reform is doomed to failure on the grounds that small states won't dilute their power voluntarily by agreeing to amend the Constitution to change the representation rules in the Senate. By this same logic, men never would have diluted their power by voting to allow women to vote. State legislatures never would have diluted their power by approving an amendment allowing voters, not themselves, to elect Senators. And whites would not have diluted their votes by agreeing to measures like the Voting Rights Act. In each instance, the underlying strength of the democratic argument overwhelmed voting self-interest.

The same could happen with reforming Senate representation and the electoral college. The first step is for those who agree with the merits of the case not to reject pursuing it out of defeatism.

I agree with you 100% about abolishing the Imperial Senate. Why the redondancy? For extended debate? Those about half the time or more end up in filibuster. Don't tell me that we can not create a hybrid out of the best of the senate and the same from the house which will have more time for extended debate than the present house but less than today's senate.
For better foreign relations? The Senate confirms appointments done by the President and ratifies traties. But there are another 3 powers pertaining to foreign relations which they share responsability with the House. And within there is that resides the teeth of the Senate pertaining to this area. I will tell you what does are as soon as I possibly can. And I apologize for not remembering now. And let's not get too sentimental about this business of Presidential appointees "just having" to be approved by the Senate. We don't really need the Senate to do it. It doesn't have to be the Senate. And it doesn't really have to be approved by some body.
For the benefit of small states? Let's make a one chamber Congress in which every state gets 2 seats to start off with plus additional ones according to population. But do remember that is people who vote not states.

Well, the truth of the matter is that in The Federalist 51 the reasons are so lame that we can see that 2 chambers of Congress were really needed just for the sake of having two chambers, basically. The real teeth of the Senate is in those responsabilities that it has to share with the House. Did you know that each senator costs us almost 4 times what each representative costs? Look it up! Our system of Checks and Balances is already "checked" and "balanced" to death. Not only do we have 2 chambers in Congress but they have different lenghts of duration pertaining their terms, if you include the Executive, they're all elected differently, by different constituencies(don't forget the Senate was appointed by State legislatures until 1913) and at different times. And all this is not counting when we have gridlock between the chambers or even between them and the President. A bill doesn't only need the House's but the Senate's and the President's approval. And if we start with an amendment to the Constitution, we will not finish. We should get rid of the Senate all together and create an amalgam of the 2 chambers including the best of both worlds. And they should all be elected at the same time as the executive for either 4, 5 or 6 years. That way we can get rid of some of the stalemate that the Constitution bestowed on the legislature.

I am curious as to which party has made the greatest use of the filibuster over a long period of time.

this mught sound stupid, but just wondering. what is unconstitutional aobut a filibuster? i am doing a report on the pros and cons of it, and i would like some opinions to add. if anyone would take the time to answer my question, it would truly be appreciated. thank you!

"So yes, the filibuster is archaic, but then so is the Senate. And so is the electoral college..."

The table you created is very similar to the electoral college.

I don't like the way you horse trade. If they get the filibuster out, we get Bush out. Fair's fair, after all.