Perry, Bachmann, and Gingrich: Signals of Doom
![]() ![]() |
Information | |
ARCHIVES
April 2012
January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 |
By Steven L. Taylor
By Steven L. Taylor
I written a number of posts concerning Ron Paul’s newsletter problem over at OTB over the last couple of week. My basic conclusion in regards to Paul (whom I flirted with considering voting for in the primary) is as follows: the bottom line is this: absent an especially comprehensive and satisfactory explanation, the newsletters utterly disqualify Paul from the nomination, let alone the White House. Having spent a substantial amount of time researching, reading, writing, and arguing concerning this matter, I can reach no other conclusion. All of my posts on this subject, for those who are interested in my reasoning and/or wish to examine the evidence for themselves are as follows (in chronological order):
By Steven L. Taylor
Filed under: OTB | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
Filed under: OTB | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
Longer posts:
Quick Takes:
Filed under: OTB | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
If you are taking 9-9-9 seriously, then you don’t understand the way the US government works. Herman Cain, I am looking at you. From me @OTB: 9-9-9 and the Institutional Structure of the US Government. By Steven L. Taylor
Originally written for OTB: In response to the “Nuclear Option Lite” move my Senate Majority Leader Reid to use a majority vote to change the rules over a particular type of amendment at a specific moment in the legislative process, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated on the floor: “We are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House” and “The minority’s out of business.” Now, hyperbole on the floor of a legislative chamber is hardly a new thing in the annals of politics. Further, it is likely that McConnell knew full well that he was exaggerating, to put it mildly. However, this is hardly either “turning the Senate into the House” and the minority remains firmly in business. First, it needs to be understood that the motion to change the rules in this case was targeted on a very specific parliamentary maneuver and is hardly filibuster reform. It does demonstrate the mechanism (which has acquired the popular appellation “Nuclear Option”) by which the majority could substantially alter the filibuster over the objections of the minority. However, there is a lot less here than that (the exact discussion of what happened and why deserves another post). As such, McConnell’s statement is not just hyperbole, but hyperbole squared (he said, risking sounding hyperbolic). Second, even if we take McConnell’s hyperbole at face value, the fact of the matter remains that a Senate operating under basic majority rules would hardly be the House. This is rather easy to demonstrate by some basic numbers. If we look at the current Senate and the 2010 Census figures for state populations we find that the representational scheme in the Senate is, as should be obvious, substantially different than that in the House, which means that the kinds of outcomes one is likely to get from a majority-base Senate would still be rather different than the House). To wit: The top 25 states in population contains 257,763,289 persons, or 83.65% of the population of the states. The bottom 25 states in population contains 50,380,536 persons, or 16.35% of the population of the states (such numbers exclude residents in DC, Puerto Rico and other territories). To put it simply: Top 50% of Senate represents 83.65% of the population of the states. Bottom 50% of Senate represents 16.35% of the population of the states. So, even if the Senate operated by majority votes the same way the House does, the relative power of huge chunks of the population (and their interests) are represented rather differently in the Senate than in the House. And yes, I do understand that partisan factors change this dynamic from a large v. small state one to one of red v. blue states. Of course, it is worth noting that co-equal representation of the states gives the Republicans a representational edge relative in the Senate. This is a structural advantage in the Senate given that, as we know, more rural states (i.e., small-to-mid-ranger pop. states) tend to be more conservative/Republican leaning and large metropolitan areas (i.e., often in larger pop. states) tend to lean liberal/Democratic. The smaller, rural states grow slowly, yet retain their two Senators while the metro areas tend to grow at a faster rate, yet the states with state metro areas also retain their two Senators. The extreme, yet real, example: California (with its 37,253,956) will grow at a faster rate than Wyoming (with its 563,626) and yet they will continue to have the same amount of power in the Senate (majority rules or not). Having said all of that, it has to be understood that changing the rules on just one delaying tactic is hardly a radical transformation of the Senate. Now, it could spark a wider fight that might, over time, lead to significant rules changes. But even then, the Senate would be rather unlikely to become the House. The differences between the House and Senate are not so simple that they can be reduced to the House functions under majoritarian rules and the Senate functions under supermajority rules (effectively of late, anyway). There is a long list of rules and processes that would have to replicated in the Senate to make it the House. This cannot be stressed enough: the differences between the House and Senate are far more complicated than simply the majority/supermajority issue. We also have to understand that the last decade or so has seen a substantial increase in the minority using these mechanisms to block basic business. As such, we have seen the Senate operate far more under majority rule for much of its history and it hardly looked like the House in terms of operation. Quite frankly, I would welcome a fight over the rules of the Senate, as the status quo is unacceptable if we actually want the Congress to be functional. The chamber needs reform to its rules, and it will likely take a fight to spark changes (such is the way of politics). A parting number: under the current rules it is possible for a coalition of the 20 least populated states plus one Senator from the next least populated state to have the 41 votes needed to block Senate action. This coalition would represent all of 10.8% of the population of the states. By Steven L. Taylor
From me this week:
Filed under: OTB | Comments/Trackbacks (1)|
By Steven L. Taylor
Yet again, a state seeks to buck the primary calendar (and yet again it provides a chance to wonder why we have the nomination system we have). From me @OTB: Florida Moves its Primary. By Steven L. Taylor
The GOP debates matter (if by “matter” we mean “affect the views that voters have of the candidates”). From me @OTB: Does Debate Performance Matter? |
blog advertising is good for you Visitors Since 2/15/03
|
Powered by WordPress