The "Tyranny of the Majority"

[albionmoonlight]

Some background reading:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
(http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm)
That done, what do you see as the role of protections for the rights of the minority in modern politics? This is a question that I imagine will be debated with more relevance in the next few years because the current Republican Party represents "the will of the majority" in a way that I have not seen in quite a while.

While Federalist 51--linked above--deals with the checks and balances among the various branches of government, I am thinking more here of a reality brought about by the existance of two large organized parties in modern politics. We can expect the White House and a slight majority in Congress to agree on a lot of things over the next 2 (and almost certainly 4) years.

In particular, I am thinking of the roll of procedural protections built into the legislative process (the most notable of which is the fillibuster--or the threat thereof). As you would expect the party in power to do, current Republicans are calling the process "stalling" and "gridlock" and "thwarting the will of the people." Democrats see these protections as part of a healthy democracy (I would expect nothing different from either party if the shoe were on the other foot.).

What is your opinion? If the White House and a majority of Congress agree on something, isn't that check and balance enough? While the rights of the minority need to be respected, the minority needs to realize that this is a government by, for, and of the people. And the people have put the Republicans in charge for a reason. Creating a holding pattern for 4 years until you hope to get the White House back isn't doing anyone any favors.

On the other hand--most of these procedural protections have a built in breaking mechanism (i.e., there is a point where a minority cannot raise a fillibuster). All the majority needs to do is compromise to the point of getting a few converts and it can have all the power it wants. Gridlock, in other words, is a two way street. Also, our founding fathers were obsessed with the idea of the "tyrrany of the majority." They realized that any Republic will not stand if it is simply a vehicle for 55% of the people to do whatever the hell they want to the other 45%. And we've managed to get by for 200+ years by not tilting too extreme one way or the other. Why change all of that now? What makes the current political majority any different/better than previous political majorities--which have managed to get by while still respecting minority positions.

Thoughts?
<!-- / message -->

[Bonegavel]

Damn could those boys write a sentence. My head is still spinning.

Thanks for the link!

Interesting to see liberals quoting The Federalist Papers now. I thought that was a dirty conservative trick :D

[QuikSand]

What is your opinion? If the White House and a majority of Congress agree on something, isn't that check and balance enough?

Of course not. The structural protection we have is imbedded into the Constitution, which (as we know) requires an extraordinary process to amend. Therefore, the things we hold to be essential -- things like basic civil freedoms and protections and most essential government authority questions, are there rather than simply passed in more vulnerable statute. This is as it should be -- one of the most important, yet underappreciated, concepts of the U.S. founding fathers.

Madison has it right here, even though the context is off a bit:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

[Blackadar]

I believe that compromise is healthy and the ability of the minority to force such a compromise is essential. It is the ultimate "check and balance". Without it, the tyranny of the majority is a danger to each and every citizen. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that until it's too late - until they're the minority.

[Warhammer]

There was another safeguard against the tyranny of the majority that was in the Constitution, but is no longer in effect. That was the appointment of Senators by the states. As I have mentioned elsewhere, this has changed the dynamics of the Senate. When Senators worry about getting re-elected rather than what is the best for the country, you have a long term recipie for disaster.

The House of Representatives was the house that was supposed to be able respond quickly to changes in public sentiment, hence their 2 year terms, whereas the Senate was supposed to be insulated from public opinion by their 6 year terms and appointment by the states. This was also part of the reason why the Senate would have control over diplomacy, and not the House.

[Senator]

You guys have to read - at least the first 100 pages - Master of the Senate by Robert Caro. He goes into great detail about this specific topic, and does a masterful job.

[Glengoyne]

There was another safeguard against the tyranny of the majority that was in the Constitution, but is no longer in effect. That was the appointment of Senators by the states. As I have mentioned elsewhere, this has changed the dynamics of the Senate. When Senators worry about getting re-elected rather than what is the best for the country, you have a long term recipie for disaster.

The House of Representatives was the house that was supposed to be able respond quickly to changes in public sentiment, hence their 2 year terms, whereas the Senate was supposed to be insulated from public opinion by their 6 year terms and appointment by the states. This was also part of the reason why the Senate would have control over diplomacy, and not the House.
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I know there were issues with the appointment of Senators, not the smallest of which were the long vacancies created when state legislatures were evenly divided. I think the appointment process could be streamlined, to address at least that issue. I wouldn't even mind too much if they were appointed by the governor(or maybe only to break ties). The need for Senators to campaign for reelection opens them up to standing for what the interest groups that are backing their reelection stand for. I like the idea of Senator Statesmen not beholden to anyone but their own conscience.

I'm sure my plan ... err the original plan ... is idealistic, as some appointments would be made simply because they do represent some special interest.

[Blackadar]

Taking that one step further, Glengoyne, I'd like to eliminate political parties for Senators and let them run on the merits of their positions. There's a lot of details to work out and it may not even be possible (never mind Constitutional), but I'd love the State to determine the amount of funding allowed in an election to each candidate and let them go talk to the electorate. I don't know if it's a good idea, but it's an idea.

Whatever we do, I firmly believe we need more statesmen and less politicians

[albionmoonlight]

There would also be the problem of state legislators being elected solely on the issue of the people that they would appoint to the US Senate. It may take away from governing their states.

Not saying that this is better or worse that what we have now, but that it is an issue.

Whatever the problems were (and I am certainly no expert on Senatorial history), they were large enough that 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states decided to change it.

[Warhammer]

There would also be the problem of state legislators being elected solely on the issue of the people that they would appoint to the US Senate. It may take away from governing their states.

Not saying that this is better or worse that what we have now, but that it is an issue.

Whatever the problems were (and I am certainly no expert on Senatorial history), they were large enough that 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states decided to change it.

I have no problem with state legislators having more issues to talk about during their elections. As it is now, many are now voted based upon party lines.

Regarding the change in Senatorial elections, it was changed in 1913, I may be off a couple years, if anything I am early. This time frame also saw the vote given to women in 1920. It was vogue to make things more democratic at the time.

[JPhillips]

I think you guys are being a little romantic in how this would work. There may have been a time when Senators appointed by states would have been above special interests, but that certainly wouldn't be the case today.

If Senators were appointed by the state legislatures we would end most split representation and thereby cut off the voices of the minority party in even more states than we have currently. Also, those appointed would be beholden to party interests. If they stray from the party's ideology they'll get axed in six years and be replaced by a real party hack. Even if a large majority of the people preferred them, the party would pick a loyalist instead and with little fear of reprisal.

This idea would also only further exacerbate the problem with partisan redistrcting. Imagine the lengths the parties would go if the swing of two or three state house seats meant a U.S. senate seat as well.

The idea sounds great and I'm all for Senators less beholden to money and special interests, but in today's world I don't think state appointment makes things better.

[Warhammer]

If Senators were appointed by the state legislatures we would end most split representation and thereby cut off the voices of the minority party in even more states than we have currently. Also, those appointed would be beholden to party interests. If they stray from the party's ideology they'll get axed in six years and be replaced by a real party hack. Even if a large majority of the people preferred them, the party would pick a loyalist instead and with little fear of reprisal.

I disagree. You are right to an extent, but remember, state legislators are turned over fairly frequently. Plus, the way they are handled would be up to the states, whether that means the governor appoints them, or the state legislature votes for them.

Another thing, I think at the state level, party politics are not as important as they are on a national level. For example, in Tennessee, the republicans just took control of the State Senate, but they will still have the Democrat Speaker retain his post. I think the main thing at the state level, is making sure the state is competently run, and ensuring that the state is adequately represented on the national level.

I also think that the Senators would be reined in, and would not cow-tow to special interests as much, because the states would hold them more accountable than the people of the state do.

This idea would also only further exacerbate the problem with partisan redistrcting. Imagine the lengths the parties would go if the swing of two or three state house seats meant a U.S. senate seat as well.

As much as I hate gerrymandering, can anyone come up with a good solution? However, if it means that much to parties, doesn't it mean that more money will be spent in states that are not battleground states? I do not think additional dollars spent on state races is a bad thing.

[JPhillips]

I don't think State Houses turn over as much as you think. It took one hundred years for the South to transform from Dem control to Repub control. Large portions of the west have been Repub dominated for thirty years. Can you foresee a time in the next twenty years when Cali or much of the Northeast will be anything but Dem dominated?

I agree that the Senate should stand for more long term ideals, and to an extnt I think they already do. If this House had its way we would already have the FMA, a flag burning amendment, possibly a flat tax, and Partriot Act II. Its been the Senate that has kept all this from happening.

One fear I have is the continuing polarization of the Senate. That's where we need moderates most. Frist basically being appointed by Bush and now Specter in danger of losing the judiciary chair because he doesn't toe the line are examples of the growing polarization of that body. If the Senate ever gets as partisan as the House we're in trouble.

As for gerrymandering I think the only solution is a constitutional amendment that requires districts to be as close to square as possible. The proble of course is that the party in charge will never vote for that and hence it will never happen.

[Peregrine]

You guys have to read - at least the first 100 pages - Master of the Senate by Robert Caro. He goes into great detail about this specific topic, and does a masterful job.

Great reference Senator, I've read Caro's whole LBJ biography series so far, it's some really fascinating stuff.

[Glengoyne]

I think JPhillips is right about my/our romanticism on this subject. I think I mentioned the plan was a bit too idealistic. Special Interests and partisan party politics are too pervasive to be effectively kept out of the system. I'm just really unhappy now with the current system, that allows interest groups to essentially legally bribe our representatives.

On the original topic. I believe the fillibuster is a necessity, not a necessary evil, but a necessity. It plays a very important role in the parlimentary process. I would be against any measure to modify, curtail, or nullify the current power of the fillibuster.

That said, I don't like the way the Democrats are using it now. I think it should be a measure of "last resort", yet the Dems are using it to keep qualified judges off the bench. They demonize the appointees, by accusing them of being pro "cross burning" and "Justice X is against abortion rights", even when the facts do not substantiate those accusations. They say the nominated justices are out of the "main stream". I don't think they would like that test or level of scrutiny applied to future judges appointed by Democratic Presidents. The Republicans can apply a number of litmus tests of their own when the time comes. "Oh you're an otherwise qualified judge who is against the death penalty, sorry you are too far out of the mainstream". BTW I would be against the Republicans doing such a thing, I believe that judges holding a breadth of ideas and viewpoints need to be spread throughout the system.

I believe the fillibuster is something that should be used judiciously, otherwise it is simply an obstructive and divisive partisan force.

[JPhillips]

Glen: The Repubs didn't have to use the filibuster against Clinton because they used committes and the "blue slip" rule to accomplish the same thing. When Clinton was Pres a senator from the state of the nominee could effectively block a nomination if he/she objected. This forced the President to find nominees acceptable to both parties if the home state was split or controlled by two Repubs.

When Bush won the rule initially went back to both Senators needing to oppose to stop a nomination. When the Repubs took back the Senate in 2002 they abolished the "blue slip" rule all together. As it stands now there is no way for a nominee to be opposed by Dems except through a filibuster.

Remember also that they have only block three or four nominees. The overwhelming number of nominees have been passed. The Dems also offered to meet with Bush to discuss nominees before the committee hearings. Bush refused to even discuss nominees with the Dems.

The solution to the nominee problem will only be found when the party in power is willing to negotiate with the minority party. If the majority party has a my way or the highway approach you can guarantee filibusters over nominees. Its the only avenue the minority has to use.

[Peregrine]

<i>When Clinton was Pres a senator from the state of the nominee could effectively block a nomination if he/she objected.</i>

Heh, tell me about it. Jesse Helms spent all of Clinton's term blocking ANY judge from North Carolina who was nominated, as a result we didn't have any judges on the 4th Circuit Court until 2001, when with Bush in the White House he miraculously recanted his previous stand that "appointing judges is a waste of taxpayer money."

[Bonegavel]

The biggest "checks and balances" provision in our system is very simple and we all (hopefully) just participated in it: Elections.

We don't have "tyranny" because of this process.

tyr·an·ny (thttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
I may be naive in saying this, but I have ultimate faith in America(ns). Sure, we make our share of mistakes, but in the end I don't think either side would allow a single person/ideal to trump our constitution. Our elected officials have to abide by this document and even though there are many interpretations of this document, I still believe that it is enough to keep it in check.

Going back to albion's point,

what do you see as the role of protections for the rights of the minority in modern politics
our system is fundamentally based on majority rules. I'm a little rusty on Civics, but most votes in the congress are simple majorities. Overriding a veto is one of the few examples that require super-majority IIRC, but other than that - majority rules.

By giving the minority the tools to step around that (if I understand your point correctly) what is the point? If the minority has the ability to override the majority it is all pretty useless.

My thoughts are the filibuster (the only I can think of as well) is that it should be sparingly used because it otherwise gives the minority too much power. I think the dems use of it for judges was not one of those appropriate uses, but that is their business.

[QuikSand]

I'm a little rusty on Civics.

Agreed. But on little else, I fear.


The rules of meetings, parliamentary procedure, and organized body decision-making are absolutely rife with requirements for a supermajority vote when called for. This is an essential part of a structured system of laws -- almost nobody wants to have a system where a 51-49 vote in the Senate one Tuesday afternoon just eviscerates the Constitution. "Majority rules" is not at all the uniform standard for decision making. Rules protecting the rights of minority interests, including the supermajority vote required to halt debate in many legislative bodies (thereby enabling a minority to filibuster) are a hallmark of a carefully balanced political process.

And your denotative definition of "tyranny" obviously misses the mark of the discussion here -- the issue is not whether the body politic will cede its authority to a literal tyrant, but whether we would grant unfettered and immediate authority to any momentary majority of voters. We have chosen not to do so, and most would argue we chose wisely.

[John Galt]

That said, I don't like the way the Democrats are using it now. I think it should be a measure of "last resort", yet the Dems are using it to keep qualified judges off the bench. They demonize the appointees, by accusing them of being pro "cross burning" and "Justice X is against abortion rights", even when the facts do not substantiate those accusations. They say the nominated justices are out of the "main stream". I don't think they would like that test or level of scrutiny applied to future judges appointed by Democratic Presidents. The Republicans can apply a number of litmus tests of their own when the time comes. "Oh you're an otherwise qualified judge who is against the death penalty, sorry you are too far out of the mainstream". BTW I would be against the Republicans doing such a thing, I believe that judges holding a breadth of ideas and viewpoints need to be spread throughout the system.

I believe the fillibuster is something that should be used judiciously, otherwise it is simply an obstructive and divisive partisan force.

Look at the numbers - the Dems have blocked a lower percentage of Bush's nominees than the GOP did for Clinton. Over 200 judges have been confirmed and only 10 have been stopped. Of those 10, several have almost no qualifications to be judges (much less life tenured judges). At least one judge has no judging or even trial experience!?! Before repeating the party line, at least look at the facts.

[Glengoyne]

Glen: The Repubs didn't have to use the filibuster against Clinton because they used committes and the "blue slip" rule to accomplish the same thing. When Clinton was Pres a senator from the state of the nominee could effectively block a nomination if he/she objected. This forced the President to find nominees acceptable to both parties if the home state was split or controlled by two Repubs.

When Bush won the rule initially went back to both Senators needing to oppose to stop a nomination. When the Repubs took back the Senate in 2002 they abolished the "blue slip" rule all together. As it stands now there is no way for a nominee to be opposed by Dems except through a filibuster.

Remember also that they have only block three or four nominees. The overwhelming number of nominees have been passed. The Dems also offered to meet with Bush to discuss nominees before the committee hearings. Bush refused to even discuss nominees with the Dems.

The solution to the nominee problem will only be found when the party in power is willing to negotiate with the minority party. If the majority party has a my way or the highway approach you can guarantee filibusters over nominees. Its the only avenue the minority has to use.
I actually hadn't heard of the "blue slip" rule, or it's uses before. It was my understanding that a number of Clinton appointees were sidelined by the commitee process, so I am not claiming the Republicans are innocent of this by any stretch. I do wonder how many of the Clinton appointees were derailed by the commitee process versus this "blue slip" process. Those numbers would shed more light on the topic. I'm a bit curious how many appointees from states with two Democrat Senators died in Republican controlled commitee. I also figure the Democrats will get this treatment back in spades when the tables are turned, and that isn't good for the process or the country either.

Something I do hold the Dems accountable for is the demonization of Judges like Pickering and Owen. To say the Pickering is a racist and for cross burning is about a big a stretch of actual facts I have ever seen. Then again the Dems said that Owens was for restricting abortion rights, when the only abortion cases she has been involved with relate to parental notification before teen abortion, not parental permission, but notification.

[Glengoyne]

Look at the numbers - the Dems have blocked a lower percentage of Bush's nominees than the GOP did for Clinton. Over 200 judges have been confirmed and only 10 have been stopped. Of those 10, several have almost no qualifications to be judges (much less life tenured judges). At least one judge has no judging or even trial experience!?! Before repeating the party line, at least look at the facts.
Do you just see my name, and seek to oppose my point of view? I don't agree with either side holding up or quashing the nomination of qualified candidates. I also gave the two examples I find the most aggregious.

[John Galt]

Do you just see my name, and seek to oppose my point of view? I don't agree with either side holding up or quashing the nomination of qualified candidates. I also gave the two examples I find the most aggregious.

No. I'm not a hack like you seem to be, but I think the myth of the democrats uniquely blocking GOP nominees is nonsense. As it has a lot to do with my career and life, I posted about it. As for your two examples, I really shouldn't comment on current federal judges.

[Warhammer]

No. I'm not a hack like you seem to be, but I think the myth of the democrats uniquely blocking GOP nominees is nonsense. As it has a lot to do with my career and life, I posted about it. As for your two examples, I really shouldn't comment on current federal judges.

There's one shot across the bow...

[Bonegavel]

Agreed. But on little else, I fear.

The rules of meetings, parliamentary procedure, and organized body decision-making are absolutely rife with requirements for a supermajority vote when called for. This is an essential part of a structured system of laws -- almost nobody wants to have a system where a 51-49 vote in the Senate one Tuesday afternoon just eviscerates the Constitution. "Majority rules" is not at all the uniform standard for decision making. Rules protecting the rights of minority interests, including the supermajority vote required to halt debate in many legislative bodies (thereby enabling a minority to filibuster) are a hallmark of a carefully balanced political process.

And your denotative definition of "tyranny" obviously misses the mark of the discussion here -- the issue is not whether the body politic will cede its authority to a literal tyrant, but whether we would grant unfettered and immediate authority to any momentary majority of voters. We have chosen not to do so, and most would argue we chose wisely.Scanning ye olde constitution online shows references to the SM (2/3 vote) regarding: impeachment, veto override, treaties, amendments to the constitution, and about president disability. Things that should be hard.

I guess my statement should have been more to the point that the day to day workings of the congress are simple majorities. The above list isn't your typical working day Action Item.

As far as my definition of tyranny, I guess I didn't understand. I understood the topic to be about the fact that, since one party has both the Legislative/Executive branches, the minority are going to be suppressed and ignored and I think the last 4 years (2 of which the same situation has been in play) has shown that it isn't the case.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by
We have chosen not to do so, and most would argue we chose wisely.
[edit]
then again, I may be supermisunderstanding that albion simply wanted to discus the roles of things like filibusters in giving the minority a voice and nothing else.

[sterlingice]

Madison has it right here, even though the context is off a bit:
I just like that you put it in a quote box as if it were posted on the board by James Madison.

SI

[korme]

am i the only one who instantly thought of?

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

[Bonegavel]

We need to chip in and buy shorty a new dvd.

[Glengoyne]

No. I'm not a hack like you seem to be, but I think the myth of the democrats uniquely blocking GOP nominees is nonsense. As it has a lot to do with my career and life, I posted about it. As for your two examples, I really shouldn't comment on current federal judges.
I'm a hack? I have a feeling you know where I think you should shove that. I don't even think you read my posts. I've said I don't agree with either party blocking nominations of qualified judges. Just who am I a hack for?

For an intelligent individual on a crusade to see that other's opinions aren't formed by their own pathetic deluded impression of the world, you seem to be awfully closed minded to even the possibility that your own worldview might just not be as true to life as you suppose it to be.

I have gone from disagreeing with you but respecting you, to thinking you are just some self aggrandizing self appointed intelectual blowhard prattling on about how pathetic the rest of us are.

[korme]

We need to chip in and buy shorty a new dvd.
hey i just had this chick buy me a movie like 2 days ago, i'm all set (it was what i got for driving her a block to meijer.. heh)

the first time i laid eyes on this hombre i smelled trouble, and refried beans

[John Galt]

I'm a hack? I have a feeling you know where I think you should shove that. I don't even think you read my posts. I've said I don't agree with either party blocking nominations of qualified judges. Just who am I a hack for?

For an intelligent individual on a crusade to see that other's opinions aren't formed by their own pathetic deluded impression of the world, you seem to be awfully closed minded to even the possibility that your own worldview might just not be as true to life as you suppose it to be.

I have gone from disagreeing with you but respecting you, to thinking you are just some self aggrandizing self appointed intelectual blowhard prattling on about how pathetic the rest of us are.

After reading your backchannel and your messages in two different threads, I'm done discussing issues with you. You are incapable of debate.

As for me being close-minded, I will let my record here stand for itself. Many will probably agree with you, but I think my postings show me to be more than a hack.

[Glengoyne]

After reading your backchannel and your messages in two different threads, I'm done discussing issues with you. You are incapable of debate.

As for me being close-minded, I will let my record here stand for itself. Many will probably agree with you, but I think my postings show me to be more than a hack.Hey John,

Right back at you.

Well except for that many agreeing with you part, that doesn't really apply to you.

[Dutch]

As we have seen before, there is a fine line between "checks and balances" working as intended and gridlock.

The biggest check and balance we have is the 8 year limit on a Presidents stay in office and the 4 year vote.

However, we almost saw a lot of money, work and effort of the last 4 years get reversed.....so there too is a fine line away from "checks and balances" and gridlock (in the long-term variety).

You don't want tyranny or dictatorship, but you don't want stagnation either.