Progressives are agitating for a Senate repeal of the 60-vote rule (the so-called filibuster rule), and for abolition of the electoral college in favor of popular vote elections, among other arguments for instituting majority rule in the country. These issues bring up the difficult issue of majority rule, an issue that has perplexed thinkers for thousands of years, at least as far back as Plato’s “Republic”, which is essentially a meditation on the evils of mob (read majority) rule.
Here is the crux of the problem – how to ensure that minority views and the needs of minority populations are not just ignored or steamrollered by the majority. It is not an easy problem, but it is a constant worry in any democratic society, whether it is just a small committee or a whole nation.
The founding fathers worried about this as they crafted the Constitution. During those debates the smaller states, like Delaware, were understandably worried about always being outvoted by bigger states like Virginia. The founders worked out a complex compromise. For example, although the House membership was determined by population, so that more populous states have more weight, every state, large or small, got the same number of Senators. This was an attempt to keep the concerns of the smaller states from simply being ignored. It is not a perfect solution (no one has yet found a perfect solution), but at least it went some way toward addressing the problem.
The electoral college has much the same effect. Each state gets a number of electors equal to their total House and Senate seats, so that even smaller or less populated states have a significant say in the election.
If we went to a pure popular vote, the obvious strategy for any candidate is to not waste money or time on “flyover country”, but just attend to the needs and desires of a few heavily populated states with big urban centers – California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc. If you live in Wyoming or Iowa or Vermont, lots of luck getting any federal politician to care about your problems or needs. Majority rule would have the predictable effect – only the issues the majority cared about would get attention.
The Senate adopted a supermajority requirement for most legislation for much the same reason. It meant that a simple majority couldn’t just steamroller legislation through. There was an incentive to cut deals, to seek compromises, and to attend at least somewhat to the minority view.
In 2013 Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid unwisely eliminated the 60-vote requirement for the appointment of federal judges, against the advice of a number of Senators who saw that while it gave him a momentary advantage, it could also be used against his party. And sure enough, when Republicans took over the Senate, they built on his precedent to eliminate the requirement for Supreme Court justices as well, to the consternation of the now-out-of-power Democrats. The current proposal to eliminate the 60-vote supermajority for all legislation is equally dangerous. Yes, it may help Biden get some of his more contentious programs through over Republican objections, but when the Republicans are next in the majority (perhaps as soon as 2022) it would no doubt be used just as much to ignore Democratic concerns.
The framers of the Constitution worked hard to produce a system that wouldn’t be susceptible to short-term fads or hysteria or ill-advised haste. It is supposed to be hard to pass legislation. It is supposed to be hard to amend the Constitution. It is supposed to take, if not unanimity, at least a heavy preponderance of agreement among legislators to achieve these things. It seems to me that principle is more important than ever in today’s highly-polarized political atmosphere, and we would be unwise to bow to the current fad of going to pure majority rule. Those who advocate it need to think seriously about what it will mean for them when they are next in the minority on some issue that really matters to them.
Posts
