It's really not a good time to be a Republican.
If you believe the polls, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is poised to win the presidency. Even more troubling, Democrats look like they'll hold on to their control of the House of Representatives, and Congress watchers predict that the Democrats could add 25 to 30 seats to their 36-seat majority, according to a recent Associated Press article.
But it's the fate of the other congressional chamber that has even the most seasoned pundits amazed. Thanks to a slew of competitive races in surprising places such as Georgia and Kentucky, Democrats may secure a supermajority in the Senate; that is, control 60 or more seats in the 100-seat chamber.
What's so scary about that, you ask? With a 60-seat supermajority, the Senate Democrats could override one of the minority's most powerful tools -- the filibuster.
What most of us know about the filibuster is often limited to our memories of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or watching a few minutes of C-SPAN. Especially in the event of a Democratic "trifecta," or control over the White House and both chambers of Congress, the Republicans would find one of their few friends in the filibuster. It could help them stall presidential nominees, including Supreme Court justices, and fight back against at least some of the Democrats' legislative agenda.
To many, the filibuster is the symbol of everything wrong with Congress, encouraging partisan bickering and unnecessary delays. Without it, some are predicting a new regime that looks a lot like Franklin D. Roosevelt's "100 Days" of progressive legislation. Given the current state of the country, many would argue this kind of governing is necessary to right the wrongs of the past eight years.
What gives me pause, however, is the word "supermajority" itself. I've seen it strike fear in more than a few faces when mentioned, perhaps because it indicates that some sort of radical change is taking place in our government. Checks and balances will still exist, but one of the more publicized checks, the filibuster, may be in danger.
With all the anti-Republican sentiment out there, we might be blindly putting faith in one political party instead of the other. If the new regime doesn't deliver on all of its promises, the nation will swing to the right again and none of Obama's progressive plans will be seen through.
In 2006, many voters chose their senators and representatives based on dissatisfaction with the Iraq War and the Bush administration in general. A trend emerged where once-safe Republican seats or high-profile incumbents such as Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum were beat out by Democratic challengers. The political pendulum had begun to swing, and this election it seems like it may swing even farther.
As much as I'm in favor of the American people voicing dissent through their ballots, I'm concerned at how frequently we vote for our legislators based on how we view the president. While voting based on political party is an easy way to determine a candidate's values, it doesn't dictate everything about who they are and what they'll do in Washington.
Many voters believe that the new face in the Oval Office should be from the opposite party of George W. Bush.
But voters should treat their votes for representatives with more care and respect for their individual roles.
Unless your chosen representatives are Obama or McCain's political clones, your votes for them should be treated as totally separate than your vote for president.
It's important to remember that no matter how much of a mandate this election gives the Democratic Party, our elected officials will still need to practice bipartisan compromise.
And once we all cast our ballots, we need to continually demand that the new government follows through with this promise. Democracy shouldn't end after today -- in fact, it's just beginning.
Leslie Small is a senior majoring in journalism and political science and is The Daily Collegian's Tuesday columnist. Her e-mail address is lcs5020@psu.edu.
