# Democrats, should 60 be the new 50? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 18, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993 "2013-04-18T01:50:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/21 "2013-04-18T17:38:48Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Presuming the republicans gain control of the senate again then it has to be done or we will end up as a third world country. You live in Rhode Island, which is already a third world country. 😃 It really kind of is, you know. When I was living there, I used to say it all the time, except I called it a “third world state”. Nice beaches! ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/22 "2013-04-18T17:42:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You live in Rhode Island, which is already a third world country. 😃 > > It really kind of is, you know. When I was living there, I used to say it all the time, except I called it a “third world state”. Nice beaches! Yes, but we depend on the rest of the country to pay our bills. It’s a primary concern to make sure the other states don’t go belly up. Seriously, that was the last balanced budget proposal we had, a couple of minor changes to take care of about 1% of the deficit, and we’d ask the feds for the rest of the money. And for some reason it didn’t work! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/23 "2013-04-18T17:53:44Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > It’s a shitty game theory situation. You either cooperate and potentially pass laws that make the country better, but at the cost of long term power, or you retaliate and do the same thing they did, resulting in bad short term outcomes. Do you let the republicans “win” by being willing to hurt the country when you have the majority while still acting like responsible adults when they’re in power? I hate rewarding the sort of behavior, but on the other hand I don’t think that democrats are willing to hurt the country to play these political games as the Republicans have shown themselves willing to. > > The other concern is that even if you do decide to play the role of the responsible adult interested in the future of the country, if you keep ceding power to them while they block anything you do, the country will gradually be shaped by their agenda, which you may ultimately think is more harmful than the immediately negative effects of obstructing good laws. > > It’s actually a really tricky situation. IOW, fucked if we do, fucked if we don’t. I wish there was some flaw in your reasoning, but I sure don’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/24 "2013-04-18T18:06:09Z")
The takeaway I have from this is that, regardless of one’s feelings on holding onto the ability to filibuster the final vote on a bill (and I can see both sides of this one), the Dems, while they’re in the majority, need to get rid of as many of the other veto points in the Senate rules as they can. For instance, a motion to proceed shouldn’t be filibusterable (whether that’s a word or not). A motion to proceed is a vote on whether the Senate should take up a bill. Preventing that vote via filibuster is extending debate _over whether to debate_ a bill. There is sillier stuff in this world than that, but very little of it is in the governmental systems of the world’s great powers. Make a rule limiting debate to one hour for each side, and then there’s an up-or-down vote. Another one: the Senate rules currently allow 30 hours of _post-cloture_ debate. IOW, after one side has gotten the 60 votes it needs to bring debate to a close, the minority can still require 30 more hours worth of debate. Now that the real debate take place in getting to the cloture vote, there’s really no need for any further debate after the cloture vote, but sure, give each side an hour before the pro-forma final vote on the bill. If Harry Reid and the Dems aren’t even willing to get rid of low-hanging fruit like this, then the Senate will forever be a mess, until such time as the GOP controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress, and the GOP decides the filibuster is a Bad Thing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/25 "2013-04-18T18:09:47Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The other concern is that even if you do decide to play the role of the responsible adult interested in the future of the country, if you keep ceding power to them while they block anything you do, the country will gradually be shaped by their agenda, which you may ultimately think is more harmful than the immediately negative effects of obstructing good laws. That’s already the case. If federal Republicans act like rightwing nuts, Democrats move further to the center to be the responsible adults and the entire national agenda and discourse is dragged to the right. Which means that basically, this tactic works - at least for certain definitions of works. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/26 "2013-04-18T18:28:20Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If Harry Reid and the Dems aren’t even willing to get rid of low-hanging fruit like this, then the Senate will forever be a mess, until such time as the GOP controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress, and the GOP decides the filibuster is a Bad Thing. Or until the Dems achieve a filibuster-proof majority. And I am willing to accept divine intervention to obtain that outcome. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/27 "2013-04-18T18:40:00Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Or until the Dems achieve a filibuster-proof majority. > > And I am willing to accept divine intervention to obtain that outcome. The flaw in that argument is that for the Dems (either party, really) to get a 60 seat majority, they have to elect some members who will be more moderate, for lack of a better word, and tend to vote at times with the other party. In reality, you’d need at least several more than 60 to make it work. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/28 "2013-04-18T18:53:49Z")
The problem with playing nice is that it doesn’t actually prevent the other side from playing dirty. The only way I see to succeed long term is as follows. 1. Democrats in the minority just as much of a pain in the ass as the Republicans. 2. Republicans immediately become supporters of filibuster reform. 3. Democrats allow reasonable filibuster reform legislation to pass, with just enough resistance to keep Republicans from changing their minds. (don’t throw me in that briar patch) 4. Democrats take back the majority as quickly as possible before the Republicans ruin the country. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/29 "2013-04-18T18:54:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The flaw in that argument is that for the Dems (either party, really) to get a 60 seat majority, they have to elect some members who will be more moderate, for lack of a better word, and tend to vote at times with the other party. In reality, you’d need at least several more than 60 to make it work. I don’t think you’d see a whole lot of Democrats voting with the Republicans on filibusters. But you’d see them bring bills toward the center like they did during the health care debate. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/30 "2013-04-18T19:31:25Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I vote for the Republicans not so much because I support the laws they pass but because the laws they want to pass are far less harmful to me than the ones the Democrats want. Ideally I want both of them to have less ability to pass laws that further tax me and restrict my rights. It’s really all about you then? People that are not you, or not like you, should be required to get a supermajority to do anything that doesn’t benefit you personally? That is a caricature most people would believe only existed in a liberal rant. And that is why tyranny by the minority is a bad thing for the country. Though I can see why you prefer it; the Republican Party is circling the drain, relevant only because of the filibuster and the gerrymander. But it is clear that the GOP is on a very short lifeline, because they can’t resist moving further and further to the right, imposing more and more rigorous purity tests for your candidates, and in the face of election losses, becoming more rigid in your dogma. The writing is on the wall; by the time Hillary takes office, there won’t be enough Republicans in Washington to field the Congressional softball team. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/31 "2013-04-18T19:34:32Z")
Did not five Democrats vote with Republicans against the main gun measure? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/32 "2013-04-18T20:14:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t think you’d see a whole lot of Democrats voting with the Republicans on filibusters. But you’d see them bring bills toward the center like they did during the health care debate. Not all the time, but often enough and usually on the real important stuff. They won’t want to be labeled as the guy who allowed \ to be passed. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/33 "2013-04-18T20:17:33Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Did not five Democrats vote with Republicans against the main gun measure? Five Democrats voted against ending debate, yes - Reid for procedural reasons and four who were opposed. But even if you add them in, it’s 59 votes to break the filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/34 "2013-04-18T22:11:44Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > (Yes, we all want to see filibuster reform, but this question assumes that this won’t happen) Reform, shit. Delete the right of unlimited debate from the Senate rules entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/35 "2013-04-18T22:18:31Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > If something is a good idea, then they should have no trouble convincing 60 out of a hundred people to vote for it. > > I’d much rather require 60 votes to pass anything than 50, regardless of party. > > If only 50 votes were required than the gun control background check would have passed, for instance. > > So this conservative likes the current system just fine and I’d say that’s true regardless of which party is in power. Isn’t this the very opposite of being a Conservative? My understanding is that Conservatives don’t want change and want to largely maintain (conserve) the status quo, and this generally manifests as strict Constitutionalism. The constitution set up a Senate simple majority, as it has been for quite some time. Until recently. Seems like a Conservative would want to get it back to where it has traditionally been - 50. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/36 "2013-04-18T23:16:39Z")
**Debaser** illustrates my point wonderfully: The Republicans actively want the Senate to be crippled. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/37 "2013-04-19T15:54:53Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It’s really all about you then? People that are not you, or not like you, should be required to get a supermajority to do anything that doesn’t benefit you personally? That is a caricature most people would believe only existed in a liberal rant. Read the words that I posted. I’m saying even the people who are like me should still need a supermajority. I want it to be more difficult for everyone to pass laws on both sides. I said this clearly. > [@](#): > > And that is why tyranny by the minority is a bad thing for the country. Though I can see why you prefer it; the Republican Party is circling the drain, relevant only because of the filibuster and the gerrymander. But it is clear that the GOP is on a very short lifeline, because they can’t resist moving further and further to the right, imposing more and more rigorous purity tests for your candidates, and in the face of election losses, becoming more rigid in your dogma. > > The writing is on the wall; by the time Hillary takes office, there won’t be enough Republicans in Washington to field the Congressional softball team. As long as we’re predicting the future… The Republican party will change. The social conservatives will die off, fiscal conservatives will replace them. The party will become more libertarian. Freedom will the the central theme. Balance will be restored to the force. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/38 "2013-04-19T16:00:52Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Isn’t this the very opposite of being a Conservative? My understanding is that Conservatives don’t want change and want to largely maintain (conserve) the status quo, and this generally manifests as strict Constitutionalism. The constitution set up a Senate simple majority, as it has been for quite some time. Until recently. Seems like a Conservative would want to get it back to where it has traditionally been - 50. This is a common misunderstanding. Conservatives want to follow the constitution, yes, but don’t always want to maintain the status quo. For instance, it’s Liberal’s right now who are happy with the status quo for Abortion and Education, to pick two issues. It’s conservatives that want to change the status quo on those. But even in following the constitution and the procedural rules of the senate, being a conservative doesn’t mean you don’t want to change anything. I think we desperately need a balanced budget amendment, for instance. That would be a change to the constitution. But that’s fine because the constitution was built with the amendment process so that we could change it. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/39 "2013-04-19T16:01:52Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Or until the Dems achieve a filibuster-proof majority. > > And I am willing to accept divine intervention to obtain that outcome. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The flaw in that argument is that for the Dems (either party, really) to get a 60 seat majority, they have to elect some members who will be more moderate, for lack of a better word, and tend to vote at times with the other party. _In reality, you’d need at least several more than 60 to make it work._ Okay, then, let’s go with that. 🙂 ETA: BTW, I’m not really sure I’m comfortable characterizing it as an _argument_ – more like a pony-wish. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/40 "2013-04-19T16:06:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Debaser** illustrates my point wonderfully: The Republicans actively want the Senate to be crippled. Yes. I do. If something is really important then 60 votes will be there. Give me some examples: Congress has been in session since January, right? Name some bills that would have been positive for the country that would have passed if not for Republican obstructionism. According to [This site](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/) these are the stats: > [@](#): > > Here is a breakdown of all 2,788 bills and resolutions currently before Congress: > > Enacted Laws > There are 7 enacted bills and joint resolutions so far in this session of Congress: > > S. 716: A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements … > This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on April 15, 2013. > H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 > This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on March 26, 2013. > H.R. 307: Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 > This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on March 13, 2013. > S. 47: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 > This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on March 7, 2013. > H.R. 325: To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, … > This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on February 4, 2013. > H.R. 152: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 > This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on January 29, 2013. > Passed Resolutions > There are 102 passed resolutions so far in this session of Congress (for joint and concurrent resolutions, passed both chambers). > > At the President > There are 1 bills that are awaiting the president’s signature: > > H.R. 1246: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Vacancy Act > This bill was passed by Congress on April 18, 2013 and goes to the President next. > Active Legislation > There are 35 bills and joint/concurrent resolutions that had a significant vote in one chamber and are likely to get a vote in the other chamber. > > Inactive Legislation > There are 2,639 bills and resolutions that have been introduced, referred to committee, or reported by committee and await further action. > > Failed Legislation > There are 4 bills and resolutions that failed a vote on passage and are now dead or failed a significant vote such as cloture, passage under suspension, or resolving differences: > > H.R. 249: Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2013 > This bill is provisionally dead due to a failed vote on April 15, 2013 under a fast-track procedure called “suspension.” It may or may not get another vote. > S. 388: American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013 > This bill is provisionally dead due to a failed vote for cloture on February 28, 2013. Cloture is required to move past a Senate filibuster or the threat of a filibuster and takes a 3/5ths vote. In practice, most bills must pass cloture to move forward in the Senate. > S. 16: A bill to provide for a sequester replacement. > This bill is provisionally dead due to a failed vote for cloture on February 28, 2013. Cloture is required to move past a Senate filibuster or the threat of a filibuster and takes a 3/5ths vote. In practice, most bills must pass cloture to move forward in the Senate. > S.Res. 5: A resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less … > This resolution failed in the Senate on January 24, 2013. So they’ve passed seven things and there are thousands more that haven’t passed. In those thousands I submit to you there is a lot more harm than good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993.md?page=3)