"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.