Sick Muse
December 17, 2009 1:13 PM Subscribe
How can one United States Senator, from a State that contains the densest concentration of insurance companies, stop a health care measure for close to 300 million people? I sincerely cannot understand the democratic nature of this. Is the the "Founders'" Vision?
This post was deleted for the following reason: you know you can't do this here. -- jessamyn
It's not one Senator.
There's 40 Republicans, 3 Democrats (Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu) and one Independent (Leiberman) that are holding up health care reform.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:16 PM on December 17, 2009
There's 40 Republicans, 3 Democrats (Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu) and one Independent (Leiberman) that are holding up health care reform.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:16 PM on December 17, 2009
And don't forget the House of Representatives either, were centrist Democrats were holding things up earlier this year.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:17 PM on December 17, 2009
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:17 PM on December 17, 2009
If it takes X votes to pass a measure, and you have x-1 votes in favor of it, then the responsibility for passing/defeating the measure will appear to fall on (usually) one senator.
However, appearances are deceiving, because in a close vote any senator can be said to be responsible for the outcome. The spotlight will shine on the swing vote, which is politics-speak for "the biggest attention whore." In this case, Senator Lieberman proudly wears that mantle.
There are lots of explanations out there for his behavior on this, ranging from stupidity to mendacity.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:18 PM on December 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
However, appearances are deceiving, because in a close vote any senator can be said to be responsible for the outcome. The spotlight will shine on the swing vote, which is politics-speak for "the biggest attention whore." In this case, Senator Lieberman proudly wears that mantle.
There are lots of explanations out there for his behavior on this, ranging from stupidity to mendacity.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:18 PM on December 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
They were having this argument on day one of the Constitutional Convention and came up with a compromise.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:18 PM on December 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:18 PM on December 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yale professor Robert Dahl has addressed this issue quite nicely.
succinct and worth the read.
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:27 PM on December 17, 2009
succinct and worth the read.
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:27 PM on December 17, 2009
If you're asking about the whole idea of a bicameral legislature with one body that weights geography far above population -- well, CPB's links are the best answer, but the question of the "Founders' vision" for today's world is more subjective because our geography is obviously very different and our population is much more concentrated. From Wikipedia:
"Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one Congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); at no time in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-Congressmen states."
posted by pete_22 at 1:31 PM on December 17, 2009
"Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one Congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); at no time in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-Congressmen states."
posted by pete_22 at 1:31 PM on December 17, 2009
To riff off Brandon Blatcher's reply, Lieberman is the face of the hold-up thanks to the Median Voter Theorem. (link to decent non-wiki primer)
posted by politikitty at 1:52 PM on December 17, 2009
posted by politikitty at 1:52 PM on December 17, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by enn at 1:15 PM on December 17, 2009