Here, from a New York Times story on Saturday's Senate vote on the Dream Act, a sentence that a lot of readers unschooled in the inscrutable byways of America's political system might naturally think needs a copy editor:
The 55-41 vote in favor of the bill, which is known as the Dream Act, effectively kills it for this year.
But, no, it is a fact that, despite being supported by 57% of senators present to vote, the Dream Act is dead, at least for now--and, considering that there will be a lot more Republicans voting in the next Congress, probably for a long while. The counterintuitive truth of the Times's sentence must be credited, if that is the word, to the fact that bringing a bill to a "final vote" requires 60 supporters in the 100-member US Senate. Since 55 < 60, it matters not that the Dream Act is supported by a clear majority of senators. For in the Senate, we do not have "majority rules," but, rather, "super majority rules," which often seems the practical equivalent of "minority rules."
Imagine if other areas of human competetive endeavor operated along the same line. We might then read in the sports pages:
Today, in NFL action, the Chicago Bears failed to defeat the Minnesota Vikings when, at the end of the fourth quarter, the Bears led, but only by 30 - 21. In the waning minutes of play, the Vikings, trailing 30 - 14, drove 67 yards for a touchdown, and when Ryan Longwell added the extra point the Bears found themselves with fewer than 60% of all the points scored in the game. The Vikings were jubilant over their come-from-behind victorious non-loss.
Or, staying within the political arena:
The Republicans, who hold a 42 - 58 advantage in the US Senate . . . .
There are various ways of trying to impress upon skeptics the profoundly undemocratic nature of this state of affairs. For example: since every state, no matter how small its population, gets two senators, the 60 per cent rule means that the 21 smallest states, which have less than 12% of the country's population, hold what amounts to a legislative veto power over senators representing 88% of the people.
Enough drizzle. In sunnier news, this same Senate, over the same weekend, repealed DADT ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), thereby clearing the way for homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces. If I were one of them, I think I'd be happy, though in a peculiar ironical sort of way, seeing as how military training consists to a considerable degree in helping people to get over their previous aversion to killing other human beings. Fewer and fewer are excluded from the privilege.
Comments