How America’s least democratic institution killed a popular public safety bill
US Senators from big urban states, including Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, generally voted in favor of expanding background checks. (Photo: US Senate Kirsten Gillibrand website)
Yesterday’s series of gun control votes in the US Senate have drawn a lot of ink already, but it’s worth pointing out that once again the country’s least democratic institution has performed in a way that boggles the imagination.
Due to modern interpretations of the Senate’s filibuster rules, measures like the expanded background check for gun purchasers currently require a 60 vote super-majority to prevail.
As a consequence, the measure failed to advance, despite receiving a majority of votes — 54 ayes, including four Republicans — and despite drawing support from 90% of Americans in opinion surveys.
But the situation in the US Senate is even more imbalanced and skewed than those numbers suggest.
As we’ve noted here before, political power in the Senate is allocated not by population — the sacred principle of one-American, one-vote simply doesn’t apply.
Instead, political power is allocated to each state “equally”, giving the same share of clout to California’s 38 million residents that is granted to North Dakota’s half a million residents.
That redistribution of influence bore strange fruit yesterday.
Because the 54 Senators voting in favor of the background check measure generally come from big urban states with big populations, they do in fact already represent more than 60 percent of the American people.
Put another way, the Senate vote on background checks demonstrated support from lawmakers representing a “super-majority” of Americans.
The lawmakers who blocked the bipartisan measure, by contrast, represent roughly 38% of our citizens.
So let’s recap. Ninety percent of Americans support a public safety measure. More than half of the US Senate, representing more than sixty percent of our population, votes in favor of the bill.
Yet by the Senate’s 18th-century rules — both the filibuster and the Constitutional redistribution of voting power — the popular will of the people is thwarted.
Whatever side you take in the gun control debate (and on this particular issue, it appears that 90% of Americans are unified) the bizarre dysfunction of this legislative body must give pause.
This structural imbalance in the Senate has been dangerously exacerbated by population trends and increased urbanization over the last century.
Rural states now wield so much power in the Senate that bills must find support from lawmakers representing roughly 70 percent of the US population in order to advance.
Measures that are particularly unpopular in rural states (like gun control) are generally dead on arrival. It’s a daunting reality that accounts for much of the gridlock and stagnation in Washington.
So why don’t they start in the House where things are weighted by population?
There would not be gridlock if they did not bother with measures that were, as you say, “dead on arrival”? As far as I can tell they are just trying to manipulate things politically.
Draft a bill you know you can’t get through. Then act all shocked and angry when it doesn’t and tell people to punish the politicians at the ballot box. The whole thing is just silly.
The president yesterday stood there telling us that people opposed to this (which I am not) lied as far as saying that it could lead to a federal registry. I think that was a lie. Then he says that gun violence is on the rise. That is a lie.
“There would not be gridlock if they did not bother with measures that were, as you say, “dead on arrival”? As far as I can tell they are just trying to manipulate things politically.”
Elected officials trying to pass a law that 90% of the population is asking for… is political manipulation?
What?
“The president yesterday stood there telling us that people opposed to this (which I am not) lied as far as saying that it could lead to a federal registry. I think that was a lie.”
You think what was a lie? The president calling it a lie… was a lie?
The people and organizations that were opposed to this legislation intentionally disseminated inaccurate information about it possibly creating a federal registry. Where I am from, when you intentionally give inaccurate information about something, that is the very definition of a lie.
As usual, those who believed (and apparently, still believe) that lie are drawing conclusions about all of this without ever having actually read the legislation themselves or taking 5 minutes to do some research and see what it actually did and did not do.
Kirsten Gillibrand is right, by the way.
This federal political system is absolutely, undeniably broken. You don’t have to be D or R to see this, or be for or against this recent legislation.
Think of it this way… Can you imagine if your town government, or your school board, or heck… your chess club, worked this way?
Imagine if 90% of the people of Lake Placid and 54% of its town council all wanted to build a new playground… and yet, for some reason, a resolution to build that playground did not pass.
Would anyone suggest that that is a functional governing body? Would anyone suggest that is democracy?
Of course not.
I am not sure exactly what it would take to fix it at this point… since working within such a broken system seems pointless. It is a Catch-22.
My only thought at this point is that there are two low hanging fruits that we can go after, and that maybe will begin to address these problems. First is filibuster reform, second is gerrymandering reform. Both of which, however, have very entrenched interests protecting them.
How do we get the Senate to reform its own rules when it will take a 2/3 vote to get that through? I despair of fixing the Senate. In some ways the house is as bad or worse with most states allowed to gerrymander districts politically. We need to end that, too. Again, how do we do that?
The Senate can change its rules on a simple majority vote. But ending the fillibuster rule is referred to in the Senate as “the nuclear option.” Minority members threaten total shut-down if it is invoked. And many Democrats in the Senate are leery of changing the rule, considering how often they have been in the minority themselves in the Senate these last few decades. Dale, NCPR
“”The president yesterday stood there telling us that people opposed to this (which I am not) lied as far as saying that it could lead to a federal registry. I think that was a lie.”
You think what was a lie? The president calling it a lie… was a lie?”
Dave, what the president said was accurate in my opinion. Anyone who thought that this would claimed this would lead to a federal registry was lying. In fact it had provisions that made it a serious crime to try and set one up.
In the same speech he also said that gun violence is on the rise. That is totally inaccurate and misleading (a lie if you will). And the statistics bear it out. Doesn’t mean a BG check isn’t a good idea but it is misinformation.
“Elected officials trying to pass a law that 90% of the population is asking for… is political manipulation?”
If it was dead on arrival, as some suggested and apparently it was based on the result, it had to have been done for some other reason. When you see a press conference afterward where they are telling us to punish the politicians at the ballot box that seems political to me?
Calling the Senate our least democratic institution is misleading hyperbole. Whether you approve or not – and most don’t – they are elected after all. What about the Supreme Court, the Treasury Department, the Selective Service, etc? We deserve better from Brian Mann and NCPR.
How to fix it? Well, term limits would be a start. Until then, vote.
If was on the town board in Lake Placid and 90% of the town wanted a new playground and we had no money for a playground, despite the fact I supported the idea, I would have to vote no. So I am not sure that the analogy fits in all cases, maybe in this one.
Dennis, as I understand it, at the start of a session of Congress, the Senate rules can be amended by a simple majority. Democrats considered really fixing the filibuster rules at the start of this last session, but chose instead to do some minor tweaks to the rules.
Fixing gerrymanders is something else again. The courts are the only real hope, and there have been a number of rulings that have made it very difficult to get any real reform in place.
Joe H.–
Brian has written at length in previous posts to make his case for the Senate being an undemocratic institution by nature and design. It is undemocratic in his view because it is not one-person-one vote representation, despite senators being elected by majority rule within their states. It is one-state-two-votes, regardless of the population of the state. Therefore, a voter in Alaska can have many times the impact in the Senate of a voter in a populous state such as California. This has nothing to do with an evaluation of the current crop of Senators being democratic or undemocratic as individuals. Dale Hobson, NCPR
Maybe it is time to get rid of the Second Amendment so that it is not dragged into every debate about guns.
First of all, we do have a well regulated militia. It is the all volunteer Army, Navy and Air Force.
Second, people could still own guns without the Second Amendment. They just couldn’t use the Second Amendment to argue against any and all regulations.
Finally, those who voted against background checks are cowards, and do we really want cowards to be “our leaders”?
Get over it.
Gallup poll shows 4% think gun control is most important issue.
96% of the United States says, “get over it” and fix the economy.
that’s a great idea jdm, except conservatives like you are blocking that too.
This is great! When the House does something Liberals don’t like, it’s the fault of Republicans. When the Senate does something Liberals don’t like it’s the fault of “conservatives” or rural states or our “least democratic institution”. And then we are treated to lunacy like this: “Maybe it is time to get rid of the Second Amendment so that it is not dragged into every debate about guns.”
Let’s get rid of the entire Constitution so it doesn’t get dragged into every debate, period. Then we can have the liberal fascism so many want. The Senate works exactly as intended. 90% of the American people do not want this type of gun control. That’s the big lie in this debate.
Does anyone really think that the American people in general will fall for the same type of anti-gun lies New Yorkers did? Actually, I take it back; apparently, many people do think so. Either way, the sneaky, dishonest “gun control” methods of Cuomo and his ilk make people mistrust the anti-gun side and their “we only want to restrict assault weapons” approach. Meaningful progress can only take place when there is honesty on both sides. The anti-gun forces have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted.
Needing 70% agreement on legislation before you move forward is not crazy and not undemocratic, it means that the few bills that do get passed will have substantial agreement across the board. It veers toward doing no harm, it veers toward the status quo being better than pushing something through. Certainly people who believe the solutions to our long run problems depends on what government does would be at a disadvantage to those who believe it is always better for the government to do nothing.
I think that when Senators are not listening to their people they would be and should be voted out, however many people do not vote on just one issue.
Mob rule is not part of our republic, there is nothing magical about 51 people telling 49 what they can or cannot do. Super majorities ensure that bills have substantial support before impacting lives. It is not all a bad thing.
Maybe if the President and some of the elites had tried to work with gun owners instead of telling them not to cling to their bibles and guns, they would be able to convince them now. The fact is in America you can’t role over them and yelling at them and chiding them won’t matter, Clinton understood that, which is why he was able to get an assault weapons band through and Obama is not, its the difference between an effective and an ineffective leader.
I think we should also get rid of background checks for people working with kids. After all, it only ‘harms’ law-abiding citizens. People who want to do harm won’t be deterred by it. Right?
We shouldn’t deny people their rights just because a majority of the mob want to do so. Marriage equality for all!
Oh wait, I mixed two different scripts…
Brian, true it cuts both ways.
I am not saying I agree with what the senate did at all. I think we should have background checks. Politically we need to figure out why this group of senators is ignoring their own constituents on this issue and move forward. What I don’t agree with is saying that the process of requiring super majorities or senate representation as it stands now; is undemocratic or somehow always a bad thing. It has good and bad points to it, but it is our system. What I find disturbing about our country is how easily our system can go to war and kill people while ignoring the rules about declaring war, yet we can’t do this very simple law. If going to war were as hard as passing gun control we would be in a much better spot.
Brian Mann: Your infusion of liberal thought shows you have disdain for the foundation that shaped this great land. This played out precisely as the founders intended. Our system worked as it was designed. This is why we are a Republic not a democracy. This is why we are the greatest nation known to man. The number(s) you provide are skewed. The media reports of overwhelming support are, in fact, bogus. The spread of this state controlled propaganda by left-wing media supports the misguided ideology that will lead us to oppression and tyranny.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government”. James Madison
**We must not pervert or subvert Our Constitution.
“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority”. James Madison
**”We the People” made sure the rights of the minority, as you suggest, were given respect. Our founders knew this and the votes echoed this design.
“Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth”. George Washington
**Storms of tyranny and “fundamentally changing” America have uprooted the liberty tree. What was done in the dark has been brought to the light. The new seeds from the liberty tree have taken root. The rapid growth has begun.
The tide will turn back in support our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Freedom and Liberty. That’s what this is all about. Flush the System!
I thought filibuster meant actually having to be on the Senate floor discussing/speaking about the issue until you convinced a majority to vote your way, or you got tired and had to allow an up or down vote. When did it change to requiring 60 votes to overcome the mere threat of a filibuster? Let’s go back to requiring a real filibuster – if someone wants to block a simple majority vote.
“Your infusion of liberal thought shows you have disdain for the foundation that shaped this great land. This played out precisely as the founders intended. Our system worked as it was designed.”
Well, maybe, though things have changed pretty drastically since then.
The disparity between the most and least populous states has grown since the Connecticut Compromise, which granted each state two members of the Senate and at least one member of the House of Representatives, for a total minimum of three presidential Electors, regardless of population. In 1787, Virginia had roughly 10 times the population of Rhode Island, whereas today California has roughly 70 times the population of Wyoming, based on the 1790 and 2000 censuses. This means some citizens are effectively two orders of magnitude better represented in the Senate than those in other states. Seats in the House of Representatives are approximately proportionate to the population of each state, reducing the disparity of representation.(Wikipedia
And if you read the history of the Connecticut Compromise that led to the design of Congress, you don’t quite hear the swelling string section that seems to be playing behind Hoosier’s post. This stuff was all tied up with the three-fifths compromise on slave representation.
Oops… that paragraph beginning “The disparity…” is a quote from the Wikipedia page linked at the end. It was supposed to be indented.
Hermit, the federal government can’t fix the economy and the GOP can’t block what can’t be done. The economy can only fix itself. I will give the administration credit for the portion of the “stimulus” that was tax incentives (60% or so). That was useful. But the economy has improved despite the “blockage” or maybe because of it?? Recent tax changes, especially re-instating higher payroll taxes may have slowed things a bit.
Walker is right about the house. Given that proportionality getting gun control regulations moving on the hill should be simple, unless there isn’t the support we think there is?
I’m only gonna make this one post on the lies involved in that bill. This is the big lie- that people can mail order a gun without going through a Federal Firearms Dealer who is mandated by law to do the background check. That’s a LIE, pure, unadulterated BS. But it gets repeated by every politician on the left. It’s like the “gunshow loophole” that simply doesn’t exist. No dealer can sell without doing the background check. As far as individual sales, the Federal Gov’t has no jurisdiction unless Interstate Commerce is involved. I realize many here would love to insert the Federal Gov’t into every crevice and crack they can find, but when you open that door, you lose everything.
The bill was another poorly written attempt at eventual gun confiscation. Simple as that. If they can take away that right, they can take away all your others. But you all go right ahead and let your fear control you. Eventually, you’ll get just what you are begging for and then you’ll see that you gave your kids future away.
If gun control worked, Chicago would be the safest city in the nation.
If gun control doesn’t work, Chicago would be the murder capital of the nation.
nuff said.
A lot of the commentary here misses some key points, I think.
First, this particular issue doesn’t break along liberal or conservative lines. That just doesn’t wash.
Between 10 and 13% of Americans believe that universal background checks for gun purchasers are wrong-headed for various reasons, mostly ideological ones. Fair enough.
But that means that at least half of people who self-describe themselves as staunchly conservative thing that it’s a good idea to vet people who want to buy guns to weed out criminals, the mentally ill, etc.
It also means that between 87 and 90% of all Americans think this policy makes sense. That transcends more or less firmly the usual he-said-she-said narrative about blue and red America.
Finally, my comments about the US Senate apply to all issues that come before that body.
If conservatives muster enough votes that “their” lawmakers represent the will of more than 60% of the American people, then I think it goes without saying that they should carry the day.
(Obviously on all votes, there is still the recourse of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of a particular bill.)
If Democrats were somehow blocking a conservative policy initiative by mustering votes from lawmakers who represent only 38% of the country — barely more than a third — I would call that broken.
Finally, I’ll say this. I doubt that Democrats have the political courage to curtail the filibuster.
Republicans tend to be more bold in advocating their policies and their agenda. My hope is that when they next control the Senate they will have the good of the country in mind and will end this misguided rule.
Democracies work when elected leaders have the opportunity, once in office, to carry out their agendas. Then we voters get to decide whether we’re satisfied or not with the results.
Democracies don’t work when both sides are trapped in an endless gridlock of fusty 18th century rules.
The happy outcome here, in my opinion, would have been for the Senate to reflect the will of the majority.
Then, if gun rights advocates can articulate clearly that the background check policy is failing, Senators who voted for it would be booted out of office.
That’s not a liberal account of how government should work. It is a simple, factual description of a functioning representative democracy.
–Brian, NCPR
JDM, your argument would be valid if there was a border around Chicago with checkpoints and border guards, but as things are, not so much.
A lot of the commentary here misses some key points, I think.
First, this particular issue doesn’t break along liberal or conservative lines. That just doesn’t wash.
Between 10 and 13% of Americans believe that universal background checks for gun purchasers are wrong-headed for various reasons, mostly ideological ones. Fair enough.
But that means that at least half of people who self-describe themselves as staunchly conservative think that it’s a good idea to vet people who want to buy guns to weed out criminals, the mentally ill, etc.
It also means that between 87 and 90% of all Americans think this policy makes sense. That transcends more or less firmly the usual he-said-she-said narrative about blue and red America.
One more thing. My comments about the US Senate apply to all issues that come before that body.
If conservatives muster enough votes that “their” lawmakers represent the will of more than 60% of the American people, then I think it goes without saying that they should carry the day.
(Obviously on all votes, there is still the recourse of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of a particular bill.)
If Democrats were somehow blocking a conservative policy initiative by mustering votes from lawmakers who represent only 38% of the country — barely more than a third — I would call that broken.
Finally, I’ll say this. I doubt that Democrats have the political courage to curtail the filibuster.
Republicans tend to be more bold in advocating their policies and their agenda. My hope is that when they next control the Senate they will have the good of the country in mind and will end this misguided rule.
Democracies work when elected leaders have the opportunity, once in office, to carry out their agendas. Then we voters get to decide whether we’re satisfied or not with the results.
Democracies don’t work when both sides are trapped in an endless gridlock of fusty 18th century rules.
The happy outcome here, in my opinion, would have been for the Senate to reflect the will of the majority.
Then, if gun rights advocates can articulate clearly that the background check policy is failing, Senators who voted for it would be booted out of office.
That’s not a liberal account of how government should work. It is a simple, factual description of a functioning representative democracy.
–Brian, NCPR
needless to say, i think this is extremely misguided. policy matters a lot. the economy has been, and still is, suffering from a shortage of demand. normally when that happens the government “fixes” it by lowering interest rates. but rates can’t go any lower. so the government should step in and create demand by providing more fiscal stimulus. the stimulus that’s already been done has been helpful, but was insufficient to fill the size of the hole. we could still use more.
“The bill was another poorly written attempt at eventual gun confiscation.”
“But you all go right ahead and let your fear control you.”
only two sentences in between!
No your wrong Brian. 38% is a lot of Americans. It is not nuts to want any bill passed to include those 38%. That is part of democracy.
Part of the issue is the strength and power of government. It is too bad that all of these liberals didn’t stand up when we were about to invade Iraq with their 38% and stop it.
The fact is a true leader would be looking at those numbers, just like Clinton did, the numbers were staked against him the same way, yet he got an assault weapons ban. Obama does not really care, otherwise he would have one the homework the leadership and the effort to include the people he needs to pass bills, noise is just noise.
38% by population but not necessarily by opinion. As was stated, about 90% of the population agree on background checks.
The amount of fear that pervades our society is deeply disturbing.
Your right knuckle and that is a different issue.
90% would mean that Senators in some of these states are not following the will of their voters. So the next step is to work on that issue, what is the political punishment for not doing the will of those who voted you in?
The political punishment for not doing the will of those who voted you in is to have to be especially devious and heavy handed in spending the money the NRA and the Kochs will shower upon you.
Adirondack residents likely understand what it is like to be railroaded by an absentee landowning “majority.” We also got railroaded here in New York by the foolish items in our recent firearms bill driven by ignorant lawmakers. I like the two votes per state concept to offset the majority railroad. But filibuster isn’t in the constitution so its weight is on the shoulders of the Senate.
I doubt the terrorist robbery and shootout took place with legally purchased firearms.
Cuomo said the SAFE act would not impact hunters, but it does. It wasn’t supposed to impact sport and target shooters, but it does. That law was rammed through the state legislature in the dead of night without public scrutiny or debate. Given that example, when Obama says his gun law won’t lead to a national registry or eventual confiscation, is it any wonder people, even those who favor some kind of additional background check, don’t trust the government? The issue is trust and the anti-gun forces cannot be trusted, as they have proved many times. 90 0/0 of the American people do not want fascism.
OL –
It’s fine to hold these views, believing that a measure supported by 90% of Americans and 54% of the US Senate and many NRA members (and the NRA itself just a few years ago) represents creeping fascism.
But it’s important to keep putting your views in the context of what MOST Americans believe.
Most Americans believe — roughly 87-90% according to numerous surveys — that background checks are an appropriate step in establishing public safety.
The most recent poll found that 55% of Americans — that’s significantly more people than voted for Barack Obama — think reasonable gun control measures can be enacted without a dangerous infringement on civil liberties or 2nd amendment rights.
Finally, according to my reporting, even very conservative courts have regularly upheld the constitutionality of gun control regulation, so long as those regulations don’t cross certain lines.
No court has ever held that background checks for purchasing firearms constitutes an infringement on 2nd amendment rights.
Here’s what Justice Scalia said to Fox News:
“What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible? Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the ][when the Constitution was written. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation.”
This is what we’re now debating and contemplating, and in states like New York, enacting. How far can we go? What is appropriate? What will work?
–Brian, NCPR
Brian,
You repeat that 90% number as if it were a given, and maybe for you it is. I would like to know the source of that number. Even if it turns out to be a “hard” number and not an anecdotal comment, you ought to understand the difference between supporting background checks and allowing the government to trample constitutional rights as was the case here in New York. Remember, even many who approve of the SAFE Act were troubled by the way it was enacted. That’s incipient fascism and most people are rightly afraid of it. I agree that the vast majority of Americans favor reasonable gun safety measures but they are suspicious, with good reason, of the motives of anti-gun activists. Hysteria, reactionism, misinformation, blatant appeals to emotion and outright lies do not foster an atmosphere in which trust and cooperation can flourish. That’s why the government can’t get anything done?
This has nothing to do with gun control. It has everything to do with control. The problem is we have forgotten how freedom feels. In some shape or form government strips us of a little freedom and liberty with each piece of legislation they pass. Regulation Nation we have become. This is of our own making. Stop electing rulers and start electing representatives by and for the PEOPLE. Elect those that stand for smaller less intrusive government. Elect those that stand for our Constitution not those that prefer to wipe their behinds with it. Elect those that understand how freedom feels. Elect those that will sow the seeds of liberty. All the hot air I see here does nothing to further the cause of freedom and liberty. We have created a government of oppression and tyranny. So what do we do? FLUSH THE SYSTEM!
“That’s incipient fascism….”
“Hysteria, reactionism, misinformation, blatant appeals to emotion and outright lies do not foster an atmosphere in which trust and cooperation can flourish.”
this time only one sentence in between!
Do you have a point, hermit thrush, or are you just trying to be clever?
Fool that I am, I believe the problem at its root is intentional disinformation. Not just for this issue, but for many.
Do most Americans believe people with histories of serious mental illness should own guns?
Do most Americans really believe that gay marriage threatens “traditional” marriage?
I could go on, of course, but you see my point.
I’m not pointing right or left. It’s bad, and lying is lying.
larry, the point is that you’re just as guilty of “[h]ysteria, reactionism, misinformation, blatant appeals to emotion and outright lies” as anyone else. and you seem to be completely oblivious to it.