"Minority Rule"

[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).