Dear Senator Manchin,
You are not my Senator, however despite the 'all men are created equal' concept your vote is more than 20 times more powerful than the Senators who do represent me. I therefore feel compelled to write and ask you to reconsider your position against ending the filibuster.
In The Hill this week you are quoted as saying:
"You all know where I stand; I’ll do anything I can."
But then, unfortunately:
"The filibuster is the only thing that prevents us from total insanity. Total insanity."
I believe that you hold this position out of principle. I also know that you have previously worked (and failed) to strengthen background checks. We can't make any progress solving this problem without you. Please take an evidence based approach to the actual danger involved in allowing the Senate to legislate with a simple majority. Consider as a starting point the rest of the G-7.
Canada only requires a supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment. Those trucker protests got a little out of hand, but Canada is not insane.
France does not require a supermajority. It is not insane.
Germany does not require a supermajority. It is not insane.
Italy uses a supermajority for early rounds of presidential voting but otherwise not. Also not insane.
Japan needs a supermajority to amend their constitution. Again, not insane.
I'm not in love with the House of Lords, but the United Kingdom manages to pass laws without a supermajority and is not insane.
Our inability to control gun violence and our inability to allow the duly elected government to legislate are the same problem. Insanity is doing the same thing (in this case nothing) over and over again and expecting different results.
Thank you for your consideration.
(Related: Legislative Service; Intelligence Squared Two-Party Debate; Episode Four)
(You might also like: Golden Gate Bridge from Marshall's Beach; Corporate Goddesses; Winter Solstice 2013)
(All Politics Posts)