5 ms·

Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of

Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of 50%+1. But the incentive structure is not there to actually change this rule -- both parties benefit from it.

wyldfire 4y ago
> both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.
- rewgs 4y ago
  > both parties benefit from it. > It is a bias towards the status quo. These are the same thing.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  There are “kingmaker” senators in both parties that cross the aisle occasionally, that this rule benefits (and also generally their specific constituents, since their outsize influence gets them more than they might otherwise get in negotiations.) Given that these kingmakers are what causes things to go over 50-50 they want to preserve their power.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  > It is a bias towards the status quo. Not a fan of the status quo, but with two largely insane parties fighting for power, I'm thankful for moderating forces.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  I've decided to actually base my vote on the status quo now. I want divided government because of how radicalized both parties have become. If something is very important, it will get votes from both parties. The current status quo is better than what either party wants
- doktorhladnjak 4y ago
  If a majority of senators did not benefit from having the filibuster, they would repeal it. The minority party is for it because it blocks the majority party. Moderates are for it because it protects them from having to go on the record by voting on controversial issues.
Me1000 4y ago
That’s also not how the Senate works. Senators are beholden to their respective constituencies, not the party of which they’re a member. A conservative Democrat from West Virginia has more job security when he runs against his party sometimes. Blaming the party rather than individual Senators is not a helpful way of looking at the problem.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
As much as manchin likes to say, democrats do not benefit from the filibuster. Tons of Republican issues are single issue nonsense that the majority of the country would detest if passed, so republicans rely on the filibuster to just not do anything. Forcing republicans to actually pass laws would be good for democrats politically. The filibuster continues to exist because it gives people like manchin compete power, so the most moderate of each party will always try to keep it alive.

wyldfire 4y ago

> both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.

rewgs 4y ago
> both parties benefit from it. > It is a bias towards the status quo. These are the same thing.
bobthepanda 4y ago
There are “kingmaker” senators in both parties that cross the aisle occasionally, that this rule benefits (and also generally their specific constituents, since their outsize influence gets them more than they might otherwise get in negotiations.) Given that these kingmakers are what causes things to go over 50-50 they want to preserve their power.
BurningFrog 4y ago
> It is a bias towards the status quo. Not a fan of the status quo, but with two largely insane parties fighting for power, I'm thankful for moderating forces.
wonderwonder 4y ago
I've decided to actually base my vote on the status quo now. I want divided government because of how radicalized both parties have become. If something is very important, it will get votes from both parties. The current status quo is better than what either party wants
doktorhladnjak 4y ago
If a majority of senators did not benefit from having the filibuster, they would repeal it. The minority party is for it because it blocks the majority party. Moderates are for it because it protects them from having to go on the record by voting on controversial issues.

Me1000 4y ago

That’s also not how the Senate works. Senators are beholden to their respective constituencies, not the party of which they’re a member. A conservative Democrat from West Virginia has more job security when he runs against his party sometimes. Blaming the party rather than individual Senators is not a helpful way of looking at the problem.

HDThoreaun 4y ago

As much as manchin likes to say, democrats do not benefit from the filibuster. Tons of Republican issues are single issue nonsense that the majority of the country would detest if passed, so republicans rely on the filibuster to just not do anything. Forcing republicans to actually pass laws would be good for democrats politically. The filibuster continues to exist because it gives people like manchin compete power, so the most moderate of each party will always try to keep it alive.