# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/81 "2013-04-21T17:56:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If you think Democrats didn’t filibuster everything out of a sense of justice and fairness, then you’re mistaken. Democrats filibustered what they could during the Bush years. Problem is, Democrats don’t have a unified caucus on many issues, so filibustering becomes impossible. Republicans can always find a few votes on the other side to break it. Unless they want to privatize Social Security or Medicare, in which case that’ll unite the Dem caucus really fast. I’m sure the Demcorats filibustered things. I also think you’re right that maybe they didn’t have a unified caucus as a minority, however, I’m hoping that’ll change when it happens again. Democrats should definitely take note of the Republicans and become an aggressive minority. Not only do you get what you want, but the American people \*reward \*you with votes. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/82 "2013-04-21T23:43:15Z")
A unified Democratic caucus is hard to achieve due to the strategy of Democrats actively recruiting very conservative candidates to run in red districts and states. The Republicans propensity to try to nominate Tea PArty candidates in places like Delaware seems foolish, but it does result in a more conservative, if smaller caucus, that is easier to hold together. If the Republicans had won the Senate but had Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, and Arlen Specter holding the balance of power, it wouldn’t really have been much of a governing majority. ---
**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 22, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/83 "2013-04-22T13:54:13Z")
That doesn’t follow. The Democrats run relatively conservative candidates in red states/districts because the alternative is not getting those seats at all. It’s not a problem so long as they run consistently-liberal candidates in their strongholds. If you don’t have 40 (or 50, or 60) reliable votes with an inclusive platform, then you won’t have them with an exclusive platform, either. The only difference is in how you fail to get 40 reliable votes, by them failing to be reliable, or by failing to get them at all. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/84 "2013-04-22T14:10:49Z")
There aren’t 20 solidly liberal states(more like 15-18), which means that often the Democrats can’t actually muster 40 liberals. In the current Senate, I count only 36. My standard being that they represent a state that voted Democrat in the last three Presidential elections(a blue state) and so can vote as liberal as they want to, and that they actually have a liberal record. The remaining 19 Democrats consist of two independents whose votes cannot be relied upon and 17 that represent red states and in nearly all the cases are fairly conservative. By contrast, there are 22 conservative states by my count, which means that if Republicans don’t screw up, they should always be able to muster 44 conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/85 "2013-04-22T15:08:19Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t think the 30-hours of post cloture debate is that bad actually, it’s a good chance for minority viewpoints to still find an outlet and I’m okay with that. I’d be good with it too, except that even if the Senate were in session 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year (which obviously they’re not, and never will be), there are only so many chunks of 30 hours to go around. So the ability to take up 30 hours of the Senate’s time even on something that’s already effectively passed is the ability to do some serious monkeywrenching, limiting what the Senate can do by simply chewing up the available hours that the Senate is in session. After every vote to confirm the nominee for a district court judgeship or an assistant undersecretary, burn 30 hours of Senate time, and pretty soon you’ve got nothing left. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/86 "2013-04-22T15:29:33Z")
Here’s the problem with the OP, you are confusing Republican obstructionism with the filibuster with the Senate Rules. First off I am a Republican and I hate the direction my party has taken. It is right wing or nothing and this strategy of obstructionism has failed miserably. If the party leadership truly believes (as I do) that Obama’s policies are doomed to failure then they should have not supported them but let the Democrats implement them and crash this country. Then we would have had a ® House & Senate and President Romney. But that’s different than the filibuster. Yes the filibuster is the tool of obstructionism but what is to stop Reid from finding his balls and ending the procedural filibuster. Let the Pubs talk about Star Wars VII and Marvel while everything grinds to a halt. Make it hard on the Pubs by keeping one Dem on station to order a quorum call and make everyone come into the chamber when the Pub stops talking. Zombie LBJ should be kicking Reid’s ass on a daily basis. And 60 votes for cloture is fine until there is debate (not filibuster) reform. You see, the motion to end debate (Previous Question) actually is harder because it requires 2/3 majority. The problem is that every other body has built in limits to debate while the Senate does not. Yes we can talk about “majority rules” and everything but fundamentally the problem is not majority vs. 3/5 but rather who the Senators represent (the state? their party? voters in the state? themselves?) and the two party system where one side ALWAYS has a majority. In a perfect world, I don’t think 60% would be bad and in fact I think helps that laws need to appeal to a wide range of interests and not (like in the House) partisan interests. Obstructionism: Republican fault Filibuster: Reid’s fault 50 vs 60: 60 is not horrible but some sort of change is needed. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/87 "2013-04-22T15:39:22Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > But that’s different than the filibuster. Yes the filibuster is the tool of obstructionism but what is to stop Reid from finding his balls and ending the procedural filibuster. Apparently he actually believed the Republicans wouldn’t use it to excess and would use exercise some discretion. That sort of beggars belief, but he did. And he didn’t want to monkey with Senate traditions too much. It was a terrible idea and pretty much everyone said so at the time, but there you go. Anyway it’s some > [@](#): > > Obstructionism: Republican fault > Filibuster: Reid’s fault No. Filibuster: Republican fault, Reid failure to stop. > [@](#): > > In a perfect world, I don’t think 60% would be bad and in fact I think helps that laws need to appeal to a wide range of interests and not (like in the House) partisan interests. If that were the case, the filibuster would be irrelevant and you’d see lots of laws pass with more than 60 votes in favor. It’s not happening, so I don’t think you can argue that it creates laws that appeal to bigger groups. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/88 "2013-04-22T19:33:30Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > For the first two years of Obama’s term there wasn’t gridlock. Public opinion of congress was still low then I believe. There’s generally an interesting poll result in that people tend to support THEIR Congressperson specifically while thinking Congress in general is a bunch of useless bums, at least the last time I looked at things. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/89 "2013-04-22T19:39:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yes, what the public wanted was simple. They wanted an end to denials based on pre-existing conditions, a free-market exchange, and a public option. In other words, Obamacare. Care to explain why that wasn’t what we got? Because the unfortunate truth of the matter is you have two choices: 1. You can write a thousand-page bill, detailing definitions and exceptions and minutiae that are included in the one-sentence concept you posted above, that will probably piss a lot of people off. 2. You can write a three-page bill that is close to that one-sentence concept and has enough loopholes and debatable definitions to ram a bus full of second-year law students through. ---
**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 22, 2013, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/90 "2013-04-22T23:34:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **adaher** : > > There aren’t 20 solidly liberal states(more like 15-18), which means that often the Democrats can’t actually muster 40 liberals. In the current Senate, I count only 36. My standard being that they represent a state that voted Democrat in the last three Presidential elections(a blue state) and so can vote as liberal as they want to, and that they actually have a liberal record. The remaining 19 Democrats consist of two independents whose votes cannot be relied upon and 17 that represent red states and in nearly all the cases are fairly conservative. > > By contrast, there are 22 conservative states by my count, which means that if Republicans don’t screw up, they should always be able to muster 44 conservatives. OK, so that’s a real, meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans, but it still doesn’t change the truth of what I said. If the Democrats decided to go “my way or the highway” and only run arch-liberal candidates, they’d win those 36 seats, maybe 37 or 38 if they got lucky in one or two of their non-reliable races, and never have the 40 they need. If, however, they run liberals in the safe-liberal races and moderates in the competitive races, they’ll end up with 36 liberal Democrats plus a dozen or two moderate Democrats in the Senate, and on any given issue, they’ll only need to convince a small fraction of those moderates to stick with the party, a much easier task than convincing conservative Republicans. So it’s still the case that the Democrats are better off running moderates in the competitive races. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/91 "2013-04-22T23:42:57Z")
I am weakly in favor of the currently implemented filibuster rule as it applies to laws. I’d like to do away with the filibuster rule as it applies to appointment confirmations. My reasoning is that the Senate is fundamentally a conservative body, and one rooted in the history of the compromise between more and less populous states. Conservative in the sense of “resistant to change”, not on the liberal/conservative democrat/republican spectrum. The members are elected to longer terms. The rules are more permissive of a minority holding their ground against a majority. If you consider all possible vote totals that might be required to pass legislation, from 1 to 101, I think 60 sits in a pretty nice place. 1-50 are obviously unstable, since the other side can just immediately vote to repeal. Very high numbers (for some value of very high) are probably unworkable. You don’t want to let a small handful of people keep you from making any progress. 51 votes (what most people in this thread seem to be advocating more) is distasteful to me because it lets very small shifts in the legislative body have a huge change on the outcome of votes. I’d much rather require that slow trends change our minds. I’m arguing that it’s better to miss out on passing a good law for a while than it is to allow more laws to be passed. If the Senate remains divided on an issue that long, then the obviously best course of action isn’t really so obvious. I’d rather wait for it to become so. Stability is an undervalued component of our legislative system. Maybe 60 votes is not the right number. Maybe 55 or 58 would be better. But I’m very doubtful that the optimal number for the Senate is really 51. It seems the Senate itself is doubtful of that as well, since they have the opportunity to change it at any point, and have not done so. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/92 "2013-04-23T20:35:29Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Debaser** illustrates my point wonderfully: The Republicans actively want the Senate to be crippled. That isn’t how I read it and I firmly agree with him in that: If the bill/idea has true merit it should have a collective bipartisan support. Why would you not? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/93 "2013-04-24T00:03:14Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > That isn’t how I read it and I firmly agree with him in that: > > If the bill/idea has true merit it should have a collective bipartisan support. > > Why would you not? And yet, this very week, a bill that _had_ collective bipartisan support (amongst voters) failed to pass this hurdle. How do you explain that? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/94 "2013-04-24T00:35:35Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > And yet, this very week, a bill that _had_ collective bipartisan support (amongst voters) failed to pass this hurdle. How do you explain that? It didn’t have bipartisan support among legislators. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/95 "2013-04-24T00:41:50Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It didn’t have bipartisan support among legislators. Because one of our two major parties has decided to reject everything, even things that they used to be in favor of (“bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view” - Richard Mourdock). The point of this thread was whether Democrats should continue this tradition if and when they are out of power. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/96 "2013-04-24T01:02:23Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I am weakly in favor of the currently implemented filibuster rule as it applies to laws. I’d like to do away with the filibuster rule as it applies to appointment confirmations. > > My reasoning is that the Senate is fundamentally a conservative body, and one rooted in the history of the compromise between more and less populous states. Conservative in the sense of “resistant to change”, not on the liberal/conservative democrat/republican spectrum. The members are elected to longer terms. The rules are more permissive of a minority holding their ground against a majority. > > If you consider all possible vote totals that might be required to pass legislation, from 1 to 101, I think 60 sits in a pretty nice place. 1-50 are obviously unstable, since the other side can just immediately vote to repeal. Very high numbers (for some value of very high) are probably unworkable. You don’t want to let a small handful of people keep you from making any progress. > > 51 votes (what most people in this thread seem to be advocating more) is distasteful to me because it lets very small shifts in the legislative body have a huge change on the outcome of votes. I’d much rather require that slow trends change our minds. I’m arguing that it’s better to miss out on passing a good law for a while than it is to allow more laws to be passed. If the Senate remains divided on an issue that long, then the obviously best course of action isn’t really so obvious. I’d rather wait for it to become so. Stability is an undervalued component of our legislative system. > > Maybe 60 votes is not the right number. Maybe 55 or 58 would be better. But I’m very doubtful that the optimal number for the Senate is really 51. It seems the Senate itself is doubtful of that as well, since they have the opportunity to change it at any point, and have not done so. > [@](#): > > Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. > > Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. > [@](#): > > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Go, get 'em, filibusteers! Amend that Constitution! Now, me, since I’m a liberal and therefore favor the Democrats, I would probably just propose a constitutional amendment to the effect that legislation must have a majority of the votes of _Democratic_ Senators in order to pass; or that Republican votes in the Senate count for three-fifths of a vote; or something like that. (Except maybe for legislation infringing on the Bill of Rights; for the Second Amendment, I might stick the _Dems_ with three-fifths of a vote apiece.) Or better yet, just make me Supreme Dictator of America. I promise to rule benevolently, for the most part. I’m guessing that those constitutional amendments would be even less likely to pass than an amendment to require that legislation must get a majority of the House, a _three-fifths_ majority of the Senate, and the signature of the President of the United States in order to be enacted. ---
**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 24, 2013, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/97 "2013-04-24T01:22:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Kearsen** : > > That isn’t how I read it and I firmly agree with him in that: > > If the bill/idea has true merit it should have a collective bipartisan support. > > Why would you not? One might as well argue that, if a bill/idea lacks true merit, it should have a collective bipartisan opposition. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/98 "2013-04-24T16:59:11Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Go, get 'em, filibusteers! Amend that Constitution! I’m not sure why you think we have to. Filibusters are clearly allowed by the Constitution. The Senate, as a body, has chosen not to vote on issues except in certain circumstances. They could change their minds and all it would take is 51 votes to undo the current filibuster rules. > [@Chronos](#): > > One might as well argue that, if a bill/idea lacks true merit, it should have a collective bipartisan opposition. I know you weren’t addressing me, but I think it’s a mistake to argue that a sufficiently good idea will get/not get a certain number of votes, or will/will not have bipartisan support or opposition. My argument for requiring \> 51 votes for passage has nothing to do with legislative merit. It has to do with stability. I think it’s problematic if the margin for a law getting passed, then repealed, then passed, then repealed, is just one or two votes. That’s what you can get when you only require a simple majority. If you require a supermajority, then you get more stable laws. I think stability in laws is worth sometimes not passing good laws, or having to wait longer to repeal bad ones (and I have no illusions about there being some magic number of votes that will only make good decisions) ---
**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 24, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/99 "2013-04-24T23:57:39Z")
I see what you’re saying, but on the other hand, the composition of the Senate mostly only changes once every two years, and there are limits on how much it can change even then. It’s not like you’ll see the law flip-flopping twice a week, or anything. I think that two years provides enough stability as it is. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993/100 "2013-04-25T01:55:01Z")
No. The GOP filibusters in part because they want nothing done so they can appoint judges when they are in charge and so the democrats appear incompetent. That isn’t a good strategy for the country. What they should do is change the filibuster to make it harder. We should keep it, but it should be harder to do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-60-be-the-new-50/655993.md?page=6)