This article has been written a thousand times, but this one is a bit unique in that it acknowledges that minority rule in the Senate is by design, rather than a recent bug.
How Small A Minority Should Be Allowed To Rule?
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “How small a minority should be allowed to rule?”
The question sounds facetious to me. If one objects to the filibuster because it is “undemocratic,” then one must object to the presidential veto for the same reason.
I am also reminded of the 17th Amendment, which repealed the appointment of Senators by the state legislatures. Without the 17th Amendment, the notion that Senators represent the will of the people wouldn’t even come up.
The value of the filibuster is that obliquely it forces the federal government to operate more narrowly within its Constitutionally enumerated powers. The effect isn’t perfect, but empowering the minority to block legislation using procedural maneuvers means that Senators (who no longer represent their original constituencies, the states) will better reflect the national consensus on federal issues.
LikeLike
“…empowering the minority to block legislation using procedural maneuvers means that Senators (who no longer represent their original constituencies, the states) will better reflect the national consensus on federal issues.”
I don’t follow. Wouldn’t a minority of senators be acting against the national consensus, by definition?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If one objects to the filibuster because it is “undemocratic,” then one must object to the presidential veto for the same reason.”
Speaking only for myself and my fellow travelers, we do object to the veto, and the presidency in general. Too much power for one person, particularly when that person is also Commander in Chief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Wouldn’t a minority of senators be acting against the national consensus, by definition?”
Not necessarily. There is no reason to assume perfect knowledge of the will of the people on any given issue by any individual Senator. The threat of the filibuster forces public opinion to be tested. In turn, the filibuster process allows legislation for which no national consensus exists to be terminated.
LikeLike
I believe in this hypothetical, a bill has already passed the House and is now being brought to the Senate. Not that the House always represents the Will of the People (see M4A’s widespread popularity), but that is its ostensible purpose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You bring up a very good example of the need for filibuster and public input. I’m guessing you must be talking about M4A popularity until the reality rears its ugly head and the public is told the truth, it ain’t free for starters. Democrats regularly refused to explain anything about it except what a great thing they said it was. Bernie let the cat out of the bag and support declined heavily.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2019/01/24/new-poll-shows-medicare-for-all-is-popul/%3futm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%2breason/HitandRun%2b(Reason%2bOnline%2b-%2bHit%2b%2526%2bRun%2bBlog)&
LikeLike
Nobody thinks it’s free. It’s just cheaper than what we already spend (according to the Koch-funded Mercatus Center, no less) and covers everyone without any of the complications and hassle of dealing with insurance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I cannot reply to your last so this is the best I can do. Your reply contains all of the vague lies that my link specifically pointed out. Phony, false assurance of utopia until the costs, tax increases, long lines, bankruptcy of public and private clinics and changing of insurance/doctors soured your claims. You think you know better than the consumer which is THE biggest problem Democrats have. Pretty bold of you to tell me what is best for me.
LikeLike
I’d just like to once again emphasize that a Libertarian-ish think tank crunched the numbers and determined single payer would be cheaper. Yes, taxes for most people would increase, but in exchange for no insurance premiums and no point of service costs. And, everyone would be covered.
If I offered to trade you my ten dollar bill for your five dollar bill, would you take that deal? Or would you think you were losing five dollars?
You can breathe easy though. As far as I can tell, those in charge of the Democratic party don’t want single payer. You may recall the last two election cycles where they very blatantly schemed to ensure the candidate most vociferously opposed to single payer got the nomination. They’re owned by the same insurance companies as everyone else.
Also, I do not presume to know, nor do I particularly care what’s best for you. I was speaking about what I and a majority of the country think is best for us.
In the unlikely event the US does implement single payer, I am quite sure some huckster will come up with a company called like “Patriot Payer” or something that you’ll be able to purchase to feel like you still are rugged individualist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Speaking only for myself and my fellow travelers, we do object to the veto, and the presidency in general.”
Personally, I subscribe to the strong version of the theory of the unitary executive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
LikeLike
The rules of the Seante do not allow the minority to ‘rule’ anything. The minority cannot pass anything, it can only block new law that infringes on the rights of the individual.
LikeLike
Partially correct. The block EVERYTHING rights or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, but a text message sent from the Senate men’s room is a filibuster nowadays.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The purpose of the filibuster was to force more time for deliberation for only so long as a senator could speak — to delay the vote, not kill it.
LikeLiked by 1 person