207 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 55 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing Summarizing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 3/10/21

We May Be One Election From Permanent Minority Rule

By       (Page 3 of 4 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   4 comments

Peter Certo

We may not be able to change the Republican Party, but we can change the political institutions it has deftly exploited.

Ideally, we'd toss out the Electoral College and restructure the Senate. Both have their constitutional roots in compromises designed to protect slaveholders, and both have warped our democracy. But amending the Constitution would require votes from the GOP, the very party that's currently gaming the system.

So what to do?

An obvious first step is to eliminate the filibuster, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. With a simple majority vote (plus Vice President Kamala Harris), Senate Democrats could set a new Senate precedent.

The demand to end the filibuster is growing in popularity among progressive groups, 60 of which recently wrote Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), calling on him to scrap it. The only obstacle may be the Senate Democrats themselves.

While progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) now support ending the legislative procedure, more conservative Senators like Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) have vowed to oppose such efforts (although the latter recently expressed an openness to filibuster reform.)

Biden is also said to be reluctant to end the filibuster.

Democrats might, then, consider weakening the filibuster, without eliminating it. As it stands, 60 votes are required to stop a filibuster; this number could simply be reduced. Or, perhaps the filibuster could be suspended for votes on expanding voting rights or admitting new states. Senators already can't filibuster court nominees or budget reconciliations (such as the most recent COVID-19 relief package), so there is plenty of precedent for this move.

With the filibuster gone or limited, the next priority must be passing the For the People Act.

Already passed this year in the House, the For the People Act would greatly modernize voter registration, restrict the voter purges that have become commonplace in GOP-controlled states, expand mail-in voting and restore the civil rights-era Voting Rights Act, among many other measures.

The bill would also restrict the partisan gerrymandering that's become the norm across the country -- particularly in Republican-controlled districts. The practice has already rendered many states essentially non-democracies. (In my home state of Ohio, Democrats typically win between 40% and 50% of the statewide vote, but hold just four of 16 congressional seats -- and may lose one of those after redistricting.)

The bill also contains a laundry list of reforms that social justice activists have promoted for years. Because it has virtually no Republican support, it will only pass the Senate if the filibuster is successfully neutralized.

Getting more voters to the polls will help, but Republicans will still remain vastly over-represented in both the Senate and the Electoral College. The only solution, then, may be to add more states to the union.

While a few creative thinkers have proposed breaking California up into seven states, it might be more realistic to offer statehood to the millions of U.S. citizens living in different districts and colonial territories without federal representation. These include the approximately 700,00 residents of the District of Columbia (which does have three electoral votes, thanks to the 23rd Amendment) and the more than 3 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.

The same is true of other overseas territories such as the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, none of which are represented in Congress or can vote in a presidential election. (Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett helped manage the Democrats' last impeachment proceedings despite being unable to vote in the trial itself.)

If the residents of these islands vote to join the union, Democrats should welcome their entry. A basic commitment to democracy demands it. (As colonial territories, they should also be allowed to choose independence, a subject for another column.)

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Peter Certo Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Peter Certo is the acting editor of Foreign Policy in Focus (fpif.org) and the associate editor of Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org). Both publications are projects of the Institute for Policy Studies.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter

Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Five Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama's ISIS War - IPS

End The Wars, Win The Antiwar Vote

There's No "Great American Comeback"

Tump's Iran Aggression Deserves Full-Throated Opposition

Sanctioning Iran to Influence Israel

We May Be One Election From Permanent Minority Rule

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend