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.
Sorry Mervel, my question was directed to OL.
But since you take it on, why should Obama offer incentives to get a bill passed on background check?
EVERYONE wants background checks, at least every serious person. Do you know anyone who would suggest that Charles Manson should get a gun? Should people who are being actively treated for serious mental disorders be allowed free access to every weapon legally available in unlimited quantities? Should felons on parole be allowed to own weapons?
I believe that the unanimous answer to those questions is, no. So how hard can it be to write a bill excluding everything that can be agreed on and calling it a good first step?
I know I wonder why they this President cant’ get it done?
Does he care about a bill or does he care about fighting the 38% who oppose him?
Politics is about making deals not making speeches.
Jeese, Mervel, you can’t make deals with utterly inflexible people, which is what the Republican Party has become. Do Repuublicans care about what’s good for the nation, or about what’s good for their party?
Do they even care about what’s good for their party?
It will take some time but this (gun control-background checks, assault weapons bans, etc.) is a long term issue. I think with hard work it can be done, these guys who continue to buck their own voters will eventually go or they will find that they must make a deal. Its not the entire party, you only need four of five of them to make this bill work. I wonder if this President has the desire for that kind of long term effort?
It wouldn’t be all that difficult if Republicans would listen to their constituents instead of the NRA. It’s likely to get a whole lot easier in 2014.
You may be correct walker, and that would be Democracy in action.
here’s a very useful corrective to this idea that somehow the failure of the background check bill in the senate is obama’s fault.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the background check amendment failed because it was a bad law even though many Americans agreed with it on a conceptual basis? The transition from broadly agreed upon concept to effective legislation is one that seems to continually confound liberal Democrats. Obama and the Democrats haven’t a clue how to govern.
i’ve considered that, but i don’t think that’s what’s going on.
i think it’s that after the assault weapons ban passed in 1994, the pro-gun control side has routinely gotten its clock cleaned at the ballot box. that has to change before the way congress votes is going to change.