"Minority Rule"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

We've had a lot of discussion on here about the concept of minority rule, especially as it pertains to the Senate. The con argument being that democracy is impeded when a minority of legislatures, representing a minority of voters, can stymie the workings of government. The following happened in Texas over the past week;

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-walkout-over-voter-suppression-bill-escalates-voting-battles_n_60b62bb6e4b01de8b7879978

"Texas Walkout Over Voter Suppression Bill Escalates Voting Battles
The rebellion gave Democrats and voting rights allies nationwide a morale-raising moment after months of racking up losses in GOP-controlled statehouses."

Now, the walkout has obviously been used before, by both parties, to various effect. What I am interested in is will the same people who condemn the Senate for "minority rule" condemn the above action for the same reason? Inquiring minds want to know.

[*Nately120*]

Call it a typical "Nately120" cop-out, but minority rule is hard to really place upon either major political party. I ain't saying they're the same, but they both take turns pissing in the punch.

[hollodero]

It's tough to condemn either party for using the tools that are available, even if said party would advocate for these tools to be removed.

Imho it's similar to things like gerrymandering etc. - you can be earnestly against it, but you can't earnestly forgo using it to your advantage as long as it exists. Every alleged moral victory coming from such a principled, noble stance would correlate with a real-life loss of influence.

[*Nately120*]

(06-01-2021, 01:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's tough to condemn either party for using the tools that are available, even if said party would advocate for these tools to be removed.

Imho it's similar to things like gerrymandering etc. - you can be earnestly against it, but you can't earnestly forgo using it to your advantage as long as it exists. Every alleged moral victory coming from such a principled, noble stance would correlate with a real-life loss of influence.

To use another football metaphor, it's like people complaining about the "pussified nature" of the NFL and the rules but then cheering their asses off when that 15 yard penalty flag flies in there and turns 4th and 28 into 1st and 10.  I'm biased as hell too...I'm not saying I"m above it.

[BmorePat87]

When I refer to this concept, I refer to scenarios where a minority of voters control a political structure over a majority of voters. It could be 3m more voters losing the Electoral College or a majority of Senators representing a minority of voters. Senate GOP hasn't represented a majority of US voters since 1996 but controlled the Senate for 16 out of 24 years from 1997 to 2020. If population figures remain, we may likely get to a point where 1/3 of the population controls 2/3 of the Senate.

Using procedural tricks to prolong the legislative process is a different concept to me and it varies based on the tool used. A majority of Senators wanting to vote for something but unable to end the threat of a filibuster from a minority can only be addressed by changing the rules. A majority of legislators wanting to vote for something but not having a quorum hours before their session expired can be fixed with the governor calling a special session.

I'd also compare the causes. You're filibustering the civil rights act? That's shitty. You're walking out because the ruling party wants to end fair voting practices used by minorities that vote for a different party? All the power to you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2021, 01:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's tough to condemn either party for using the tools that are available, even if said party would advocate for these tools to be removed.

Imho it's similar to things like gerrymandering etc. - you can be earnestly against it, but you can't earnestly forgo using it to your advantage as long as it exists. Every alleged moral victory coming from such a principled, noble stance would correlate with a real-life loss of influence.

That's pretty much where I'm at as well.

(06-01-2021, 01:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: To use another football metaphor, it's like people complaining about the "pussified nature" of the NFL and the rules but then cheering their asses off when that 15 yard penalty flag flies in there and turns 4th and 28 into 1st and 10.  I'm biased as hell too...I'm not saying I"m above it.

Completely agreed.

(06-01-2021, 01:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When I refer to this concept, I refer to scenarios where a minority of voters control a political structure over a majority of voters. It could be 3m more voters losing the Electoral College or a majority of Senators representing a minority of voters. Senate GOP hasn't represented a majority of US voters since 1996 but controlled the Senate for 16 out of 24 years from 1997 to 2020. If population figures remain, we may likely get to a point where 1/3 of the population controls 2/3 of the Senate.

Using procedural tricks to prolong the legislative process is a different concept to me and it varies based on the tool used. A majority of Senators wanting to vote for something but unable to end the threat of a filibuster from a minority can only be addressed by changing the rules. A majority of legislators wanting to vote for something but not having a quorum hours before their session expired can be fixed with the governor calling a special session.

I'd also compare the causes. You're filibustering the civil rights act? That's shitty. You're walking out because the ruling party wants to end fair voting practices used by minorities that vote for a different party? All the power to you.

In Texas the party representing the minority of voters deliberately sabotaged the working of government.  This is absolutely no different than the Senate blocking legislation through the fillibuster.  Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but your last paragraph seems to suggest the ends justify the means.  The problem with that is you're using a subjective criteria to approve of the tactic in some cases and not in others.

[BmorePat87]

(06-01-2021, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's pretty much where I'm at as well.


Completely agreed.


In Texas the party representing the minority of voters deliberately sabotaged the working of government.  This is absolutely no different than the Senate blocking legislation through the fillibuster.  Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but your last paragraph seems to suggest the ends justify the means.  The problem with that is you're using a subjective criteria to approve of the tactic in some cases and not in others.

I don't see them as being identical tools for the reasons I noted. One can and will be easily be overridden, one cannot and likely will not be. The majority will still win out in one scenario. They won't in another. 

That said, if you're sabotaging legislation that actively harms democracy or human rights, I absolutely would support that action. I don't think the act in itself is wrong. I'd look at the motive. For the same reason I would not decry all acts of civil disobedience because it broke the law. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2021, 02:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't see them as being identical tools for the reasons I noted. One can and will be easily be overridden, one cannot and likely will not be. The majority will still win out in one scenario. They won't in another.

According to everything I've read on this subject the legislation needed to be passed by midnight on that date in order to take effect for the next election.  So no, it cannot be easily overridden and while they may eventually "win out" there was irreversible change, or lack of change, due o this action. 

Quote:That said, if you're sabotaging legislation that actively harms democracy or human rights, I absolutely would support that action. I don't think the act in itself is wrong. I'd look at the motive. For the same reason I would not decry all acts of civil disobedience because it broke the law. 

Which, again, is a subjective criteria.  What you consider to be such an act may not be what someone else considers such an act.  So who gets to decide when such an act is warranted or not? 

[BmorePat87]

(06-01-2021, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: According to everything I've read on this subject the legislation needed to be passed by midnight on that date in order to take effect for the next election.  So no, it cannot be easily overridden and while they may eventually "win out" there was irreversible change, or lack of change, due o this action. 


Which, again, is a subjective criteria.  What you consider to be such an act may not be what someone else considers such an act.  So who gets to decide when such an act is warranted or not? 

Their session ended (because state legislatures tend to have very short sessions) but the governor of Texas can call a special session whenever they want and he already made it clear he was going to because a number of things he wanted did not pass. So they can still approve it in time to stop thousands of minorities from voting in their next election. 


Of course, they could have attempted to pass this before their final day and could have chosen to not do it behind closed doors without any Democrats. They could have chosen not to suspend their rules to force a vote on a bill less than a day after it was introduced. 

There's a lot of things they could have done to ensure that their anti-POC voting bill had plenty of time to pass despite Democratic antics, but they ****** up and now they have to wait a few weeks before they pass it. But, yea, something something minority rule this is bad, let the majority stop Black churches from organizing early voting events. 

We all have different morals. That's reality. Whoever is in power gets to force their morals on the rest of us so long as it does not violate established law, as interpreted by our courts, which were mostly appointed and approved by a minority (oh ****, minority rule again, dammmmnnniittt). Some of us can chose to hold onto universal principles that look down on discrimination and infringing upon basic human rights. Others can hold principles that do not respect those things. They're wrong in my eyes, and I am wrong in theirs. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2021, 03:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Their session ended (because state legislatures tend to have very short sessions) but the governor of Texas can call a special session whenever they want and he already made it clear he was going to because a number of things he wanted did not pass. So they can still approve it in time to stop thousands of minorities from voting in their next election. 


Of course, they could have attempted to pass this before their final day and could have chosen to not do it behind closed doors without any Democrats. They could have chosen not to suspend their rules to force a vote on a bill less than a day after it was introduced. 

There's a lot of things they could have done to ensure that their anti-POC voting bill had plenty of time to pass despite Democratic antics, but they ****** up and now they have to wait a few weeks before they pass it. But, yea, something something minority rule this is bad, let the majority stop Black churches from organizing early voting events. 

We all have different morals. That's reality. Whoever is in power gets to force their morals on the rest of us so long as it does not violate established law, as interpreted by our courts, which were mostly appointed and approved by a minority (oh ****, minority rule again, dammmmnnniittt). Some of us can chose to hold onto universal principles that look down on discrimination and infringing upon basic human rights. Others can hold principles that do not respect those things. They're wrong in my eyes, and I am wrong in theirs. 

I can't really argue with much of this post.  Personally, I'm big on being consistent.  While there are always exceptions and absolutism is almost always a bad thing I think a consistent position prevents personal feelings from clouding judgment or swaying someone from their normal principles.  I appreciate the responses.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2021, 01:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When I refer to this concept, I refer to scenarios where a minority of voters control a political structure over a majority of voters. It could be 3m more voters losing the Electoral College or a majority of Senators representing a minority of voters. Senate GOP hasn't represented a majority of US voters since 1996 but controlled the Senate for 16 out of 24 years from 1997 to 2020. If population figures remain, we may likely get to a point where 1/3 of the population controls 2/3 of the Senate.

Using procedural tricks to prolong the legislative process is a different concept to me and it varies based on the tool used. A majority of Senators wanting to vote for something but unable to end the threat of a filibuster from a minority can only be addressed by changing the rules. A majority of legislators wanting to vote for something but not having a quorum hours before their session expired can be fixed with the governor calling a special session.

I'd also compare the causes. You're filibustering the civil rights act? That's shitty. You're walking out because the ruling party wants to end fair voting practices used by minorities that vote for a different party? All the power to you.

Why do people keep thinking of the Senate as representing the population. I blame teachers.

[Belsnickel]

I have no problems with people using the tools available to them to stall or prevent legislative processes. If you don't like it, then change the rules. That's why I am supportive of ending the filibuster. I don't like it. Do I think it has been used for good? Sure. Do I still want to see it end? Yep. Were I on the opposing side of this situation I'd be calling for a change to the rules on quorum.

Minority rule has been explained, already, in here. Now, I don't complain about it in the Senate as much as I do about the Presidency or the House of Representatives (because the majority party can absolutely represent a smaller amount of the population there, as well). But my remedies for that are popular presidential elections and an increased number of Representatives tied to the population.

[Bengalzona]

(06-01-2021, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We've had a lot of discussion on here about the concept of minority rule, especially as it pertains to the Senate.  The con argument being that democracy is impeded when a minority of legislatures, representing a minority of voters, can stymie the workings of government.  The following happened in Texas over the past week;

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-walkout-over-voter-suppression-bill-escalates-voting-battles_n_60b62bb6e4b01de8b7879978

"Texas Walkout Over Voter Suppression Bill Escalates Voting Battles
The rebellion gave Democrats and voting rights allies nationwide a morale-raising moment after months of racking up losses in GOP-controlled statehouses."

Now, the walkout has obviously been used before, by both parties, to various effect.  What I am interested in is will the same people who condemn the Senate for "minority rule" condemn the above action for the same reason?  Inquiring minds want to know.

I think people only make a big deal about it during those times when things become so partisan between parties that almost every piece of legislation becomes "circle the wagons!" time. But it is all cyclical anyway. So, how it is today will change again in time.

[Dill]

(06-01-2021, 01:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When I refer to this concept, I refer to scenarios where a minority of voters control a political structure over a majority of voters. It could be 3m more voters losing the Electoral College or a majority of Senators representing a minority of voters. Senate GOP hasn't represented a majority of US voters since 1996 but controlled the Senate for 16 out of 24 years from 1997 to 2020. If population figures remain, we may likely get to a point where 1/3 of the population controls 2/3 of the Senate.

Yes to the bolded. I prefer the term "superminority" for the described state of affairs. 

That party A gets to block party B at this moment or that while B complains--and then B does the same when its turn comes--is not the issue.

It's that superminority control of legislation and court appointments becomes a structural feature of government over time, defeating the principle of majority rule.

That's why the Senate filibuster has become such an issue now--because it has been historically shaped as a tool to maintain outsize superminority power. It's not just that a majority of Senators can represent (apologies to Mike) a minority of voters, but also that a minority of Senators representing a minority of voters can prevent the passage of legislation it doesn't want passed, even when that legislation has majority support. If we are talking about a "small government party," that is way of maintaining its agenda through times it is not the majority.

Gerrymandering is often a part of such control as well. 

Not to mention the current wave of "voter integrity" legislation in many states, referenced below.

(06-01-2021, 01:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'd also compare the causes. You're filibustering the civil rights act? That's shitty. You're walking out because the ruling party wants to end fair voting practices used by minorities that vote for a different party? All the power to you.

The bolded is anti-democratic, an effort to maintain superminority control, but the paradox is that in a democracy people have a "right" to vote to end democracy (at least for some). 

[BmorePat87]

(06-01-2021, 04:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why do people keep thinking of the Senate as representing the population. I blame teachers.

Why I oughta! 

Not saying it shouldn't be that way (and if we had that conversation I would say that big states should split), but it's a good example of minority rule. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-02-2021, 12:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes to the bolded. I prefer the term "superminority" for the described state of affairs. 

That party A gets to block party B at this moment or that while B complains--and then B does the same when its turn comes--is not the issue.

It's that superminority control of legislation and court appointments becomes a structural feature of government over time, defeating the principle of majority rule.

That's why the Senate filibuster has become such an issue now--because it has been historically shaped as a tool to maintain outsize superminority power. It's not just that a majority of Senators can represent (apologies to Mike) a minority of voters, but also that a minority of Senators representing a minority of voters can prevent the passage of legislation it doesn't want passed, even when that legislation has majority support. If we are talking about a "small government party," that is way of maintaining its agenda through times it is not the majority.

Gerrymandering is often a part of such control as well. 

Not to mention the current wave of "voter integrity" legislation in many states, referenced below.


The bolded is anti-democratic, an effort to maintain superminority control, but the paradox is that in a democracy people have a "right" to vote to end democracy (at least for some). 

and the structure of the Senate worked (despite it inherently being less representative) because for much of our history Senators took the notion of the "upper chamber/house" to mean something. Mitch McConnell began to exploit the system as minority leader to derail the work of the Senate, and Harry Reid responded by going nuclear on appointments. Now Chuck Schumer wants to go full nuclear, which is advantageous now, but what happens when this fluke of Democratic control ends?

The Senate and Electoral College will increasingly represent a superminority.  

[Dill]

(06-02-2021, 09:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Why I oughta! 

Not saying it shouldn't be that way (and if we had that conversation I would say that big states should split), but it's a good example of minority rule. 

Big states have been split.

That's how the Republicans got four senators out of the Dakota Territory instead of two. 

[Dill]

(06-02-2021, 09:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and the structure of the Senate worked (despite it inherently being less representative) because for much of our history Senators took the notion of the "upper chamber/house" to mean something. Mitch McConnell began to exploit the system as minority leader to derail the work of the Senate, and Harry Reid responded by going nuclear on appointments. Now Chuck Schumer wants to go full nuclear, which is advantageous now, but what happens when this fluke of Democratic control ends?

The Senate and Electoral College will increasingly represent a superminority.  

I'm not worried about who's in charge--if there is transparency and democratic accountability. 

But it's not clear we can have that going forward, given the mass and permanent disinformation permeating U.S. politics. That is by far the real problem, and what makes issues like the filibuster and "voter integrity" legislation so problematic. 

But are you saying that "full nuclear" will lead to the Senate and Electoral College increasingly representing a superminority? 

[CJD]

It's weird to me that walking out works like this. You'd think that an absent vote would default to a no vote and the quorum would proceed as scheduled.

Just like the filibuster, it seems like walking out is a tool installed into the system to prevent the government from doing its job and should, like the filibuster, be eliminated.

I've always felt like the majority should be able to enact their agenda and, if it fails, they will be voted out and the new majority can fix the problems the previous majority created.

Now, the fact that this majority's agenda happens to be "ensuring we keep our power regardless of our popularity via voter suppression" makes this a unique situation because it potentially prevents the above cycle from happening. I am not an advocate of the ends justifying the means, but voter rights are a very sticky situation, given my belief that the majority's agenda should be allowed to fail and allow the people to recognize this and replace them.

For example, I'd be in favor of the minority filibustering/walking out/doing whatever they can if the majority theoretically wrote a bill that said "Republicans' terms are 10 years and Democrats' terms are only 1 year" (pure hypothetical that is likely unconstitutional, but you understand my point, I think). There is a bounds by which I belief intervention is required and restricting voters' rights/ensuring your re-election indefinitely is one of those bounds for the self-perpetuating issues above.

[hollodero]

(06-01-2021, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which, again, is a subjective criteria.  What you consider to be such an act may not be what someone else considers such an act.  So who gets to decide when such an act is warranted or not? 

Well, for one, when it's about my own opinion then I decide that. And whether I see such a move as warranted or not is always following subjective criteria, as is everything really. My subjective stance would also be that attacking Canada is bad; and if a democratic minority would use every measure (including ones they wanted to get rid of before) to prevent something like that is fine by me. I'd not call them hypocrites, or inconsistent.

Now sure, Texas republicans did not propose something quite that severe, but they proposed some measures that are imho shocking and blatantly anti-democratic, in both senses of this word. On the other hand, senate republicans used a measure akin to walking out to stop investigating an insurrection attempt. Because they think it might be bad for them politically, if the guy mainly responsible still is the party's monarch and only himself or someone with his full endorsement can ever get nominated for president or for almost any other elected office.

These two situations are so vastly different in their motivations (that assumption is not really subjective anymore), and in my (subjective) sense of morality, that lack of consistency on the democrat's part doesn't seem like a good argument to me.