"Filibuster-proof majority"
A lot of people talk about 60 Senate seats as though it's a magic number. I suspect this is overblown. Essentially all major legislation has a small random number of defectors from each party. Therefore, the marginal effect of having 60 senators rather than 59 is not significantly different from the marginal effect of having 59 senators rather than 58.
It may affect committee seat allocation. Does anyone know how committee seats are allocated between the parties?
posted by Benjamin Schak at 7:10 PM
3 Comments:
I spent five years as a financial journalist in Washington, and have some comments about this.
First off, I have always regarded the 60-seat benchmark as psychological. For one thing, Joe Lieberman is effectively a Republican, so to hit 60 you really need 61.
Also, you are absolutely correct that there isn't rigid party discipline in the Senate, so the idea that 60 (or 61) is a magic number is absurd. That said, I do think it's a psychological hurdle because each side can gum up then works with filibuster threats.
Thirdly, if (as seems increasingly likely) Obama wins in a landslide and the Democrats reach 60 seats or close to it, and maybe another 20 in the House, the effect on the Republicans will be intimidating.
Another 33 Senate seats will be up for election in 2010, and you can bet that a big Democratic victory will focus some minds and make the Republicans there (and in the House) see the virtues of crossing party lines.
Finally, there is a long tradition in both houses of Congress of giving the president wide latitude in the beginning of his term with respect to appointments and major legislative initiatives.
So, while I do agree that 60 seats is not a holy grail, I also believe that if the Democrats achieve it there will be a fairly profound psychological impact, not just in itself but because a 60-seat majority would come within the context of an unambiguous landslide in which the public signals in no uncertain terms a desire to turn the page.
Let me put my previous comments in a different way: If you take a narrow and literalistic reading of "filibuster-proof majority," then you're right in your criticism of the idea. If, on the other hand, you listen as much to the music as to the notes, then a 60-seat majority would carry quite a bit of oomph.
A few comments.
First, party-line votes aren't as rare as you think; the Senate has lots of arcane procedures (think cloture) which require 60 votes.
Second, it's all about the supreme court, where (especially in today's political atmosphere) having 60 votes in your own party will make lots of candidates available who would otherwise not get a serious look (think Hillary Clinton).
Third, Joe Lieberman better hope he's the 60th vote, otherwise he's out on his ass the minute he steps out of line.
Post a Comment
<< Home