4 ms·
> 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 d
by 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 agoThere 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 agoI'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 agoIf 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.