The author of this screed, Jean Edward Smith, has committed intellectual fraud in his argument. He knows full well that this line of argument is specious, yet that did not stop him from publishing this nonsense. A couple of examples. First, if it truly is necessary to apply the principle of one person, one vote, then the solution is not to abolish the Senate filibuster - rather, the obvious solution is to abolish the Senate itself. But somehow this erudite scholar misses that simple bit of logic.
Leaving party affiliation aside, it is now possible for the senators representing the 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states — a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population — to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans.
The author apparently thinks that he can muddy the issue and fool the readers. He's probably right, as far as the average leftist Times reader who can't decide for themselves what to think about any issue until the Times has told them the right way is concerned. But there are still plenty of people who can rely on their own native intelligence and critical thinking skills to see through the bias and propaganda.
How convenient that he can come up with a lopsided count of 11 percent of the population vs. 88 percent (with the ludicrous proviso of leaving party affiliation aside), yet mysteriously he neglects to perform the same calculation to show that almost certainly even a 51 to 49 vote does not necessarily equate to majority rule (on the basis of population represented by the senators casting the 51 votes). Conversely, a minority of votes for cloture can probably represent a majority of the US population (if the vote is constructed in the same fraudulent way that he "proves" that the filibuster is undemocratic).
Hardly anything that graces the pages of the NY Times, whether it is on paper or on-screen, can be taken at face value. There is a game afoot to embolden the DemoCommies to rewrite the rules now that they are in control. This little bit of phony "analysis" is clearly just a part of a broader media assault on the filibuster that is being orchestrated (by whom? by ODumbo's handlers?) with the eventual goal of ensuring one-party totalitarian rule. The Demo-Commies can almost taste it. They see what an ass like Hugo Chavez can get away with in his own sandbox, and they salivate over the prospect of doing even more damage here.
Why is it the Demos want to change the rules whenever they think they are at a disadvantage - every stinking time.