A Fuss over Filibuster
The document dates back to 2003.
The issue at stake is the controversial procedure of filibuster which enables a minority of Senators to frustrate the will of the majority.
Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader at the time intended to limit the right of senators to filibuster.
Indeed, he wished to reduce the number of Senators needed to vote a motion of cloture from 60 to 51 senators.
Frist’s major argument is that filibuster is unconstitutional because it is anti-majoritarian.
However, one may challenge Frist’s arguments.
Firstly, one may argue that contrary to what Frist’s comments may suggest, the Senate confirmed the vast majority (an overwhelming majority) of Bush’s nominees to the bench.
The figure, which speaks for itself, shows that Frist’s argument is groundless.
Secondly, the Democrats claim that Frist’s reform would make it too easy for the majority in the Senate to ignore the views of the minority and so would reduce the chamber to a mere “rubber stamp”.
Finally, one may also question Frist’s constitutional argument as according to the journalist, the constitution itself contains several blocking devices which frustrate the will of the majority.
For example, each state is represented by two senators, regardless of its size or population. (However, this argument is quite arguable.)
The Electoral College does not necessarily reflect the will of the popular vote either. Once a party has won the popular vote in a given state all the Electors for that state will vote for their candidate. Therefore the vote of the 45% (for example) who did not vote for this party are totally unrepresented by the Electors.
Bill Frist’s argument is all the more surprising that two of these features (the Electoral College and the Supreme Court) have played a part in having G. W. Bush elected in 2000 despite the fact that the latter had lost the popular vote.
