Below, I've outlined a bipartisan way of getting rid of the filibuster, without harming any of the incumbent interest groups that would normally block such a move.
Motivation
Imagine how much better the US government would function if we could solve the filibuster problems. Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it also prevents the senate from getting anything done.
Even if both parties have a long-term interest in getting rid of the filibuster, in the short term, it's just a political football: The majority party wants to overturn it to pass its agenda. The minority party wants to hold on to it to block the other party's agenda. The problem never gets solved because short-term political interest always pits one party against the other.
To be sure, there are some senators, including the late Senator Robert Byrd, who will attest to the value of the filibuster. The filibuster does not have the most illustrious history, however. The Civil Rights Act of '57 and '64 were both initially blocked by filibuster. Furthermore, it's become so commonplace to filibuster in recent years that it has ground the legislative process to a halt, preventing it from solving chronic national problems.
Democrats are currently proposing various sneaky ways of overriding the filibuster with a simple majority, but not only would Republicans cry foul, it might also set a dangerous precedent of congress flippantly changing its rules of governance.
Changing the filibuster is generally assumed to require a two thirds majority in the senate, an unreachable goal without a bipartisan approach.
Proposal
I propose a solution that is simple, practical, and bipartisan: Structure a bill to overturn the filibuster so that it only takes effect after the passage of a 10 year delay window. This delay window should, in theory, eliminate both self and party-interest from the equation because
1) Current incumbents are unlikely to remain in office after the delay window has past, allowing them to look beyond their own self-interest in their voting decision.
2) Each party has a roughly 50% chance of being in the majority after the time window expires. This means neither party will win or lose from the rule change.
These two factors should allow the senate to achieve the bipartisan, two thirds majority necessary to finally overturn the antiquated, undemocratic filibuster.
Philosophy
The idea of a delay window can be seen as a practical application of the Rawlsian concept of the veil of ignorance. According to this idea, individuals should make civic decisions as if they were blind to their own status in society. Similarly, the delay window would allow congresspersons to make political decisions blind to how those decisions might affect their own and their party's political future.
Other Uses
This same delay window technique might also be useful for eliminating gerrymandering. The delay window might need to be longer though, because incumbents tend to stay in office longer, meaning a ten year window might still be seen as damaging to their self-interest. Another problem is that parties tend to stay in office indefinitely in certain states: Texas is likely to remain Republican indefinitely, just as California is likely to remain democrat. Parties which agreed to surrender gerrymandering in their own state would be at a disadvantage to those that don't. If Democratic and Republican dominated states both agree to tackle the problem at the same time, however, these inequities should cancel out.
Conclusion
The main drawback to using delay windows is that they postpone badly needed reform. If immediate reform is unrealistic anyway, as seems to be the case with with the filibuster, then nothing is lost.
Delay windows could be used to fix a range of seemingly intractable government procedural problems, including the filibuster and gerrymandering. It's a simple solution that should gain the bipartisan support necessary to reform the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment