Comment by heartbeats | Hacker News Reader

Comment by heartbeats | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The next problem is that in order to pass new laws, you need to have a super-majority in the senate, a majority in the house, and the presidency to go along with the law. Pretty difficult when the republican party has decided they want absolutely no new laws and certainly no expansion of rights. (See: how hard they are fighting against the HR-1 the voter rights act [2])

Why isn't this abolished, then? Does a majority of the U.S. electorate actually want to abolish the filibuster and so on? If not, then it seems like a logical series of propositions:

1. A majority of the U.S. population want >60% majorities to pass laws.

2. A majority, but less than 60%, support nationally permitting abortion.

3. Therefore, while a majority of the U.S. support abortion, they don't support any system that would actually allow it to become law.

"The federal government is hopelessly useless" and "the states shouldn't get to decide anything" seem to me like two contrary positions. Either:

1. The current federal system is fine, and there is no need to change anything.

2. The current federal system is not fine, but it can be changed. Therefore, it should simply be reformed.

3. The current federal system is not fine, but it can't be changed. Therefore, the states should have the power instead.

What am I missing, here? Genuinely curious.

> What am I missing, here? Genuinely curious.

Population distribution.

There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists.

Were the US population evenly distributed then this wouldn't be as much as a problem.

There's also been a massive shift in political attitude with the republicans. Back in the Clinton presidency, democrats and republicans often worked together on bills and compromises to keep the government functioning. This changed with the tea party and Newt Gingrich at the end of Clinton's presidency.

After Clinton, Obama was the next democrat president. He had a filibuster proof majority briefly but lost it + the house for the rest of the presidency after the first half of his first term. He was still working on compromises with the republican party (unsuccessfully) and in his second term when he lost the senate it was simply too late to get anything done. Mitch McConnell launched the "we won't approve anything you want to do" policy.

Now, with Biden as president, the senate is 50/50 R and D. 2 democrat senators have said "we will not eliminate or change the filibuster under any circumstance" and that's where we currently sit. Democrats do not have the votes to move anything.

It's not really hopeless. Assuming democrats turn out in the midterm to vote for democrat senators (we just need 2 more) then a lot of positive changes can happen. However, if instead they take the "nothing we do matters" approach then we are boned probably for the next 2 years and maybe even longer still.

What's really distressing is republicans are now deciding that "any election that doesn't result in us winning was stolen" and they are putting into place laws to allow them to decide that "We don't think the people voted right or the democrats cheated" so they can effectively steal elections. We are heading head first into tyranny.

I can't stress enough how important it is to vote for democrats in the upcoming elections. I get that people don't like them in many issues, but america is currently facing a take over by a party that has turned fascist.

> There's also been a massive shift in political attitude with the republicans. Back in the Clinton presidency, democrats and republicans often worked together on bills and compromises to keep the government functioning. This changed with the tea party and Newt Gingrich at the end of Clinton's presidency.

It's changed with the Democrats, too. It wasn't too long go that the Democrats had a significant contingent of pro-life officials and were competitive in conservative farm states.

The nationalization of politics has created an unhealthy situation where candidates have to pass national litmus tests to win a nomination that will doom them in their actual election.

> There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists.

> Were the US population evenly distributed then this wouldn't be as much as a problem.

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Even if >50% want a national abortion law, <50% want to do the necessary ground-work of "cutting Wyoming down to 0.2 senators".

If people do not want it, then how can it happen? Cutting the filibuster only makes sense if you control the Senate, which is about 50/50 for both parties.

> <50% want to do the necessary ground-work of "cutting Wyoming down to 0.2 senators".

No, that's not the case. I'd dare say >50% of the population wants to cut Wyoming down to 0.2 senators. But how do they accomplish that? The only viable route is a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, you need 2/3s of the senate to agree AND you need 3/4s of the states to ratify.

By saying "oh, well the majority can just insist on the change" ignores the fact that the current system gives the minority power to say no.

The only hard work the majority could actually do is move from these high population states into low population states to re-balance the voting power.

The US is not a democracy. 50% of the population wanting something means nothing. And without an actual civil war and new constitution, that won't change.

> The US is not a democracy.

It's a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

Grant this, but at some point, there's still a lack of majority support somewhere. >50% might support cutting Wyoming down to size, but <50% support removing the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment.

What does that matter?

Even if I granted that, the only way to change the supermajority requirement IS a constitutional amendment, requiring a supermajority.

There is no state where you can blame the government not working based on the simple majority not trying hard enough (Barring a revolution).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com