The fallacy of the supermajority

July 7, 8:09 AMManchester Democrat ExaminerPaul Briand

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Manchester Democrat Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Newly-minted U.S. Sen. Al Franken, right, with Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, left.

The transformation of Al Franken from comedian to politician (wait, is that a transformation?) gives Democrats in the U.S. Senate a so-called supermajority.

In the Senate, a supermajority of 60 votes (a three-fifths majority of senators) can end a filibuster.

Franken, who finally became the Democratic senator from Minnesota after a protracted recount and challenges, represents No. 60 among Democrats in the U.S. Senate, and a lot is being made in the media of Democrats reaching the supermajority threshold.

But the supermajority assumes a lot:

To begin with, it assumes everyone is present for a vote. And right now two Democratic senators -- Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts and Robert Byrd from West Virginia -- are often absent because of illness.

It assumes two senators who are Independents aligned with Democrats -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman -- will indeed side with the Democrats.

It assumes Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania will not side with his former party.

Generally, it assumes Democrats walk in lock-step with their leadership and/or their president, Barack Obama.

And that's not likely.

Granted, we're still relatively early in this session and this presidency but it's likely the supermajority is there in name only, and won't be there as a matter of practice.

Take the example of New Hampshire's Democratic U.S. senator, Jeanne Shaheen.

She is as loyal a Democrat as there is. But she doesn't always vote with the leadership or the president. Consider her vote on TARP.

Back in January the president wanted $350 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief  Program. Shaheen was part of a small bloc of Democratic senators who supported a resolution to block the funds. Because of several cross-over votes by Republicans, which included New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, the resolution was defeated and the TARP money was approved.

The president wanted it. The leadership wanted it. And Shaheen voted no.

So be advised: Don't make too much of the supermajority. It looks good on paper, but that's about it.