3 ms·

Even at a rate of 1 name per second, this would take almost 11.5 days to read out all the names non-stop. Is there some kind of time limit for this kind of thi

Even at a rate of 1 name per second, this would take almost 11.5 days to read out all the names non-stop. Is there some kind of time limit for this kind of thing?

dfreidin 15y ago
There's no time limit, but a 60% vote can force him to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States... Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there.
- younata 15y ago
  Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there. Also known as 60 Senators are required to vote to force him to stop.
lmkg 15y ago
Nope. That's the point. It's called a filibuster. The goal of the Senate is to be the worlds most deliberate deliberative body, which means that the voting doesn't happen until the discussion is well and truly done. Imposing a time limit would allow discussion to be quashed prematurely by manipulating the process. Naturally, this open-ended system can also be gamed, by not letting a bill get to vote. This lets a determined minority prevent a measure from being passed even when that measure's support is technically in the majority. Some consider this a feature rather than a bug, as it prevents the minority stance from being completely disenfranchised. This tactic was originally a weapon of last resort, but then its use increased. At some point, a new rule was enacted where discussion could be quashed by 60% (supermajority) vote. This effectively causes a two-tiered system to achieving a mandate, although senators were hesitant of setting the precedent of stopping the filibuster in case they needed to use it themselves later on. Recently it has come into vogue again, with the number of filibusters and threats of filibusters rising considerably.

3 ms·

Even at a rate of 1 name per second, this would take almost 11.5 days to read out all the names non-stop. Is there some kind of time limit for this kind of thi

by jasondavies 15y ago

Even at a rate of 1 name per second, this would take almost 11.5 days to read out all the names non-stop. Is there some kind of time limit for this kind of thing?

dfreidin 15y ago
There's no time limit, but a 60% vote can force him to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States... Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there.
- younata 15y ago
  Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there. Also known as 60 Senators are required to vote to force him to stop.
lmkg 15y ago
Nope. That's the point. It's called a filibuster. The goal of the Senate is to be the worlds most deliberate deliberative body, which means that the voting doesn't happen until the discussion is well and truly done. Imposing a time limit would allow discussion to be quashed prematurely by manipulating the process. Naturally, this open-ended system can also be gamed, by not letting a bill get to vote. This lets a determined minority prevent a measure from being passed even when that measure's support is technically in the majority. Some consider this a feature rather than a bug, as it prevents the minority stance from being completely disenfranchised. This tactic was originally a weapon of last resort, but then its use increased. At some point, a new rule was enacted where discussion could be quashed by 60% (supermajority) vote. This effectively causes a two-tiered system to achieving a mandate, although senators were hesitant of setting the precedent of stopping the filibuster in case they needed to use it themselves later on. Recently it has come into vogue again, with the number of filibusters and threats of filibusters rising considerably.