Can You Help Me End the Filibuster?

[Joanne98]

The filibuster is undemocratic. And we must end it--permanently. Can you help me kill the filibuster? Forever.

Jonathan Tasini's diary :: :: Before Christmas, our collective work for progressive healthcare reform ran into a brick wall of opposition by four Senators: Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu. Senator Lieberman’s obstructionism doomed the public option. Senator Nelson’s obstructionism undercut a woman’s right to privacy and access to health care.

Those four Senators were able to block the will of 56 Democrats because of the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster.

This 60-vote requirement is no longer the exception on matters of deep principle; since Democrats won back the Senate in 2007, it has become a routine method of blocking the will of the majority of the Senate, and the majority of Americans who elected them. But, Senators of both parties have used the filibuster to block the will of the majority.

This is profoundly un-democratic, and it must change.

So, today, I am launching a nationwide campaign to eliminate the Senate filibuster with this petition:

It's time for the Senate to abolish the filibuster.

The filibuster is undemocratic and contradicts the core principle that legislation should become law by majority vote. The mere threat of a filibuster can bring the business of the Senate and the American people to a halt.

The filibuster allows a minority of 41 Senators to block the will of 59 Senators. Even when 60 Senators support a bill, the 60th Senator can hold the bill hostage to individual demands that can warp important legislation.

We call on every candidate for Senate in 2010, and every Senator who will continue to serve in the 112th Congress, to pledge to vote, on the first legislative day in 2011, to change the Senate's rules to eliminate the filibuster.

If I am elected Senator, I promise to vote NO on the Senate rule that contains the filibuster and organize opposition to the filibuster among my Senate colleagues. We must bring democracy back to the U.S. Senate so that we can do the business of the people.

I don't want my NO vote to be symbolic. I want every Senator currently serving and every candidate who is elected in 2010 to join me, both Democrats and Republicans.

I believe this is possible if we enlist voters across the country to persuade all Senators and Senate candidates to join me in taking the "no filibuster" pledge.

And that's why I need your help.

Please sign the petition today and circulate it to everyone you know. We will deliver the petition to all current 100 Senators and all identifiable non-serving 2010 candidates for the Senate.

Democracy is more important than the power of an individual Senator.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/11/823848/-Can-You-Help-Me-End-the-Filibuster

SIGN THE PETITION.........

http://www.jonathantasini.com/content/abolish-filibuster?

[TheWraith]

1. More stuntwork from Tasini.

If he knew more about politics than he needs to self-promote, he'd know that it takes a 67 vote supermajority vote to change Senate rules.

Second, I wonder if he was still also in favor of simple majority rule when it was Democrats blocking Bush appointees, or if he's simply hypocritical.

[burning rain]

2. Senate Rule XXII's 2/3-requirement for changing Senate rules is unconstitutional, & null.

It only takes a simple majority.

I agree with Tasini. I think Americans should get what we vote for, and we should get it good and hard, whether we elect Democrats or Republicans. Much apathy on the part of the citizenry comes from Congress's relative inability to deliver, and much of that is due to the institution of the filibuster. Abolishing it would predictably lead to a more effective Congress and more engaged, active citizenry. It's a win-win.

[zipplewrath]

4. Constitution says otherwise

The constitution gives the senate the power to make their own rules.

Article 1, section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

They wanna make a rule that they can't change rules with out a super majority, they can. What's interesting is that it isn't clear who is responsible for "enforcing" these rules. Concievably they could violate their own rules and still conduct business.

[burning rain]

8. You need a 2/3 vote to expel a member.

Not to make rules or discipline a member. Any given Congress can make its own rules, but can not limit or abrogate a subsequent Congress's right to make and change rules by simple-majority vote.

[zipplewrath]

11. Subsequent being the key

The rules are approved with every congress. That's the key moment and generally the "agree" to operate under the old rules while making the new ones.

[zipplewrath]

3. I have a better proposal

The filibuster is an interesting tool for protecting minorities, but it is damaged by the distribution of senators in this country. When we were a country of 13 small colonies, the largest was probably Virginia and the smallest, Rhode Island or something, it worked pretty well as a geographical balance on Washington. But now that the largest is California, the "two senators per state" thing is just absurd. But that will never be changed. So what I propose is for the cloture rule, is that it cannot just be ANY 40 senators. In order to block a vote, they must be distributed. i.e. 4 votes from each federal district. There are about 25 votes per district so there are plenty from which to chose. One could even mix it up more by saying that it must include at least 3 states. Failing that standard, senators can still DELAY votes, but not block them.

[burning rain]

5. That's a most unlikely proposal, because so Byzantine.

You are right though about the filibuster protecting minorities, but probably not in the way you intend. The filibuster protects not poor, oppressed, suffering minorities, but rich, oppressive, abusive minorities. Between Reconstruction and Eisenhower's second term, even though most white Americans and most members of Congress were willing to grant black Americans some more rights, the filibuster "protected" ultraconservative and hyperracist Southern whites from that possibility. And now, as always, the filibuster allows moneyed interests to more easily thwart popular legislation by needing to capture just 41 senators.

[zipplewrath]

10. Yup

More often than not, it is used to protect an undesireable position. Although it was responsible for protecting us from John Bolton to some extent.

[burning rain]

12. I wouldn't have begrudged a simple majority of senators the ability to confirm Bolton.

As much as I loathe him, he's the sort of nominee one should expect from the likes of George W. Bush, along with Alito and Roberts. Under almost all circumstances, presidents are entitled to their nominees, in my view.

[dtotire]

6. Senator Harkin Has a Proposal

A party could filibuster for a week, after that it would take 57 votes for cloture. Another week, then it would take 54 votes, etc, until a bill could be passed with a simple majority. This would delay, but not prevent a majority from passing a bill.

[TheWraith]

7. Or we could simply establish weighted voting by population.

Either way would require a constitutional amendment, but weighted voting would put an end to the absurdity that the lowest population state of Wyoming has 70 times the representation per capita in the Senate as does the highest population state of California.

You could still have a filibuster, but instead of requiring 60 out of 100 votes to end, it would require votes representing at least 60% of the US population.

[zipplewrath]

9. More than an amendment

That provision can't be changed without unanimous consent of the states. Alternately, a Constitutional Convention that basically replaces the constitution.

[Vidar]

13. K&R.