4 ms·
If you don't have 60 seats in the Senate, you don't control it under current rules. 41 Senators is all it takes to declare a bill filibustered and dead. These
by chowells 4y ago
If you don't have 60 seats in the Senate, you don't control it under current rules. 41 Senators is all it takes to declare a bill filibustered and dead.
These rules are a severe perversion of the intention of a filibuster. They absolutely should be undone, but both parties are too afraid of giving up power when they have less than the majority. It's obscene and a perfect illustration of American politics.
- macintux 4y agoI’d be fine with the preservation of the filibuster if it was a true filibuster. Make the people who want to stop the bill stand up in front of the Senate and the world and make their case, indefinitely, until something gives. Now it’s just a cheap veto with no meaningful short-term cost.
- delecti 4y agoThe argument that I've heard is that a speaking filibuster results in inability to pass other bills through the chamber. So we can at least get other bills passed, but also some bills which can't be voted on would be able to get through because it's so easy to block things. I'm not sure which option is better.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThat’s a feature, not a bug. It requires you to decide the legislation is so bad it’s worth tying up the Senate indefinitely. Right now, there are no consequences for filibustering, so there’s little reason to use it judiciously.
- theluketaylor 4y agoHalting all Senate activity should be a consequence of of the filibuster. It increases the negative consequences of using it, something that is desperately needed. Right now there is basically zero cost to filibustering anything, so it happens all the time and tons of legislation isn't even proposed for debate since it's not the worth the hassle when senators know bills will just be filibustered anyway. If using what is supposed to be an extreme tool came with more consequences senators would (hopefully) reserve usage for more extreme legislation. If using the filibuster angered other members of your party who have worked hard to move bills through the legislative process there would be a lot more pushback to using it every time there is a day in the week. The 1972 2 track rule has made it far easier to sustain a filibuster since there is little to no pressure from other minority members to compromise or just move on. The 2nd track allows just enough bill movement to prevent backlash from more moderate members.
- Maursault 4y agoWith the more than 20 years, and continuing, of Republican overrepresentation in the Senate, control by the Democratic majority is impossible. What needs to happen is making D.C. and Puerto Rico States of the Union and get rid of the Electoral College. Only then will the federally elected actually represent the voters.
- deltarholamda 4y agoThe original intent of the Senate was to represent the States, not the voters. That's what the House is for.
- D-Coder 4y agoThe House used to have a filibuster rule in the 1800s. They finally got rid of it exactly because it ended up blocking everything... then restored it... then got rid of it again.