The For the People Act, the most comprehensive voting-rights legislation in over 50 years, was presented to the United States Senate. This place is known for being the world's largest deliberative body. The measure was not even considered by the Republican senators. The bill was supported by every member of the Democratic Majority, a group that includes 50 senators who represent 40 million more constituents than their Republican counterparts. However, it failed to reach the 60 votes required for a filibuster to be broken. It was not even close.Given the stakes, it's not surprising that some rush to paint For the People Acts' failure to pass the Senate in a political setback or a strategic mistake, or as a presidency-defining error.It is important to look at three key developments in order to understand why American democracy still stands a chance.However, such doomsday thinking overlooks the bigger picture. Although democracy advocates are disappointed in principle, the Senate just missed a huge chance to defend the republic from the most brutal form of authoritarianism that the United States has ever seen. However, in practice, the Senate never passed any voting rights bill on its first attempt. It has not been clear whether the For the People Act would win over 10 Republicans. It is now up to 50 Democrats whether they can convince the Senate to repeal or modify the filibuster, and then vote for the For the People Act by a simple majority.This lens shows that this week's vote was a step in the right direction and not a step backward. The passage of major voting rights legislation is closer than ever.It is important to examine three key developments that have helped American democracy remain viable and more likely to prevail. None of these developments were possible when the Senate was taken by Democrats with the smallest of majority six months ago.First, the fact that, despite Trump's attempts to overturn an election, his parties unwillingness to stop him and a well-funded campaign against the For the People Act to turn voters against democracy, democracy is still popular with the American people. A recent poll found that 71% of Americans think in-person early voting should become easier. 69% support national guidelines for voting and the majority support expanding vote by mail.Continue the storyJoe Manchin is one of the most ardent defenders of filibusters. He joined voting-rights negotiations and proposed a For the People Act he believed should receive significant bipartisan support. Photograph by Tom Brenner/ReutersA smart compromise proposal by Senator Joe Manchin has allowed Democrats to take away the one popular, but disingenuous, talking point of Republicans in the election debate: support for voter identification. Mitch McConnell and his conservative allies from Koch wanted to make voting rights a political liability for Democrats. This encouraged their members to drop the topic. The opposite happened. It is right to continue fighting for democracy, and it is politically sensible to do so for Democratic senators.Republican overreach has made it more urgent to protect democracy from moral and political perspectives. This was not inevitable. This was not inevitable.Instead, Republicans redoubled their support for Trump's authoritarian tendencies. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that 389 bills restricting voting were introduced in 48 states. These bills are far more powerful than previous voter suppression efforts and will lead to lengthy court battles in public courts as well as a potential backlash. Already, voting-restrictions laws like the Georgia one have been so outrageous and so severe that many of America's largest corporations have voted against them. They are not often open to criticisms of the GOPs top priorities.Americans might be able to save democracy despite facing threats that were unimaginable only a few years backOn-the-fence Democrats have had more freedom to maneuver because of the business community's support for voting rights. West Virginia's Manchin, one the filibusters most passionate defenders joined voting-rights negotiations, proposing a For the People Act version he believes should receive substantial bipartisan support. He strongly implied hell consider reforming the filibuster, if his proposal doesn't receive the support it deserves. Another filibuster snob, Arizonas Kyrsten Silena, has indicated that she is open to discussing the Senate's 60-vote threshold. This leaves the possibility open that she might support reform in the end.Even Republicans are slowly but surely moving towards voting rights. Although Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska senator, did not vote to end the filibuster against the For the People Act she made sure to support certain aspects of the bill. If the filibuster was not an obstacle to democracy advocates trying to get to 51 Murkowskis votes, then it would likely be in play. Even though Republicans were likely to control the Senate in January, the idea for a bipartisan, sweeping bill to end voter suppression, and expand voting rights, seemed absurdly far-fetched. It is now possible.It is not possible to do something just because it seems possible. Democrats are running against the clock. Campaign season is coming soon. There is a possibility that the Democrats Senate majority could be cut short due to premature retirement or death, given the caucus's age. Manchin, Sinema, and other legislators who want to push for progress are likely to be too clever.On the other hand, the slow but steady approach may work if activists keep applying public pressure and if state-level GOP politicians continue their egregious attacks on the vote; if the public attention is focused on the health of democracy; if 50 Democrats come to a compromise that preserves filibuster while allowing legislation to pass. These things are unlikely to happen. However, they are all possible. All of them seem more probable after this week's vote.The current path will not bring about the dramatic, triumphant, and day-one change Democrats like myself hoped for in those weeks leading up to the election. But Americans can still save democracy despite the threats they face. It would be more than enough to save democracy.
