Obama and the magic of 60

This week we have been discussing the implications of the news that Al Franken will become the 60th Senator to vote with the Democrats.

Franken was finally declared victor in the Minnesota Senate race by the state’s Supreme Court, eight months after the election was held. We have placed this in context of the debate on the separation of powers and the politics of the institutions. It is well known that the American Constitution outlines a separation of powers, and it is often said that parties are designed to unite what the Constitution separates. But it is misleading to look at how the Democrats have control of both the executive and legislative branches and think that they are able to push through any legislative reforms they like. This would be to wrongly apply ideas about the UK parliamentary system to the USA.

The issue of unified government has come up again this week since the Democrats will potentially have enough votes to bring to an end the legislative wrecking mechanism known as a filibuster. This tactic is available to the opposition party in America’s second chamber and when employed means that a bill can run out of legislative time and does not come to a vote. A student favourite here is the filibuster Strom Thurmond conducted in the 1950s in attempting to derail an item of civil rights legislation. Thurmond spoke without a break for over 24 hours! In the end, alas, he failed. The Civil Rights bill of 1957 was passed.

60 votes can bring an end to a filibuster via a method called cloture.

So why won’t the Democrats be able to embark on a radical set of reforms? Simply speaking, the party is a broad coalition of liberal, moderates, and conservatives. Therefore the actual ability to muster 60 votes across a range of issues appears unlikely. Moreover, a couple of Senators, Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy are seriously ill.