senate question

[tabbycat31]

Does a bill NEED 60 votes to pass in the Senate? I'm still confused here.

[glowing]

1. no.. Its just the minority that is threatening a fillibuster..

[Dragonfli]

4. Hi! you are of course correct but I thought it would be helpful to the OP

To explain the rules a bit as they have been so often (willfully?) misrepresented.
Please help by adding or correcting my explanation below.

:toast:

[BzaDem]

2. In effect, yes.

A bill can pass with 50, but it needs 60 to be brought up for a vote.

[Dragonfli]

3. Glowing is actually correct - Let Me Explane - Before more recent times

The threat of a filibuster alone was not enough to override the will of the majority. In order for a minority to oppose the will of the majority, extreme measures could be taken to block a vote that represented the will of said majority. The method used was a "filibuster" and was not an easy thing to accomplish. According to the rules one has a right to "debate" until enough votes swing ones way to accomplish the defeat of the bill proposed and originally approved of by the majority.

In a stalemate situation where enough votes could not be won through persuasion, the act of taking to the podium to "debate" was often used instead to willfully refuse to give up the pulpit thus blocking a final vote by insisting the debate procedure continue, theoretically indefinitely, effectively blocking the chance to bring the bill to a final vote that one knew would be passed by the majority. The 60 votes comes in because it takes 60 votes to end debate and move on to the actual voting. The votes to end the debate itself is called cloture and is not a vote on the bill itself but on the ending of debate procedure (the vote follows the debate). Until Reid decided it would be rude to actually insist on the indefinite debating required for this obstruction ploy to work, one had to have the fortitude and endurance to continue this debate indefinitely in order for this method to achieve the obstruction intended by the minority.

In all truth, for most of the history of the Senate, the bluff was often called and the success of the filibuster depended often on such things as the will power to stand and debate without leaving for days on end. If the obstructionists lacked the will or the physical ability to keep up the obstruction, the debate would end and the majority vote would pass the bill.

Do not let the appeasers fool you. If the bluff was called nearly every time, the will to try to use this tactic would decrease dramatically. For instance, if Reid would have called ANY of the filibuster bluffs threatened, say near a recess, it is doubtful that the Republican obstructionists would have had the will or fortitude to actually carry out the continuing debate beyond the time they wished to leave.

What they have been calling "successful filibusters" the last two years is inaccurate, as they never even had to try to pull off a filibuster. If you would like to understand how difficult it can be to actually carry one out, I suggest you research the history of successful versus unsuccessfully actual filibuster attempts throughout the history of the Senate.

By making it a done deal, simply by saying they may do it, the original spirit of debating a bill, subverted by using the debate to block a bill, has been even further perverted under Reid to be little more than rubber-stamping the objections of a minority.

The truth sucks, but there it is.

[firedupdem]

5. thanks...that really helped me understand..i've been lost with the

60 vote thing and your explanation helped a lot!!

[Dragonfli]

7. Your Welcome! It is hard enough to help effect positive change

Without confusing rhetoric clouding our understanding of the rules of our governmental procedures.
IMHO your former confusion is common and caused by a deliberate attempt to make the rules seem more incomprehensible than they actually are.

We need to help each other by clarifying what we each can if we are to effectively work together as "We The People".

[Two Americas]

10. thanks

Good explanation.

[Dragonfli]

13. Your welcome

Upon rereading it I noticed I made a few spelling and grammar errors, hopefully I was able to explain it well enough so that people that have been repeatedly told fairy tales about not having to actually filibuster "in modern times" to accomplish the same results were somewhat enlightened.

Even in this thread that nonsense was claimed as a reply to my layman's explanation. Oy Vey!
How tiresome.

[tritsofme]

11. The concept of cloture was instated in the Senate to effectively end the practice of traditional

filibuster.

You also incorrectly imply that Reid has had some sort of hand in the creation of the cloture motion or current filibuster procedure, he has not. There have not been substantive changes to these rules since 1975.

A bill cannot be brought to the Senate floor for a vote unless cloture is invoked. This cannot be done without 60 votes.

I don't know what more you expect.

[Dragonfli]

12. Incorrect and Misleading

The U.S. Senate adopted a cloture rule in 1917 that requires a two-thirds vote of that body to end a filibuster. It is the only method to force the end of debate, it assumes the participants will continue debating otherwise.

You do not appear to know the definition of the word filibuster, I can help you with this.

Filibuster
The term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. It works to prevent a vote because the Senate's rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only when debate ends naturally. The word comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom. When a Senator filibusters, he/she holds the chamber hostage until it meets his/her conditions.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/glossary.htm

What you may infer from my comments regarding Reid has nothing to do with the reality of my comments. I "implied" nothing of the sort (incorrect or otherwise).

I simply stated the obvious - that Harry Reid has made a habit of folding to the threat only of a filibuster and then moving directly to a cloture vote without bothering to test the will of the minority in an environment where debate may end naturally via lack of will on the part of the obstructionists to debate for days or weeks the "virtues" of positions that would be unpalatable to the voting public if the bluff were called. (a habit as yet unbroken, so I consider it a rule of his leadership)
You see, due to your lack of understanding of the definition of a filibuster, you are under the mistaken impression the republicans are actually filibustering, they are not, they have not.
Reid has not required them to, he requires it would seem only that they threaten to.

What do I expect from Reid? To require them to filibuster rather than merely threaten to in order to get their way. If it is so easy that a mere threat produces the same results, why they may do something silly like merely threaten to filibuster over 90 times or something and just get their way, no one would expect him to be that ineffective of a leader would they? Of course not! err maybe you, and possibly Harry Reid.

spelling edit

[tritsofme]

16. A clever minority could get around this problem

by having 16 members sign a cloture petition.

This would effectively kill the legislation by making a vote on cloture, that they had no intention of voting to invoke, imminent.

[Dragonfli]

19. Not so clever actually, and it would not end debate.

They would still have to pull off the actual filibuster, I am sorry you didn't know this.
I would rather believe our leadership was doing all it could as well.

As unfortunate as it is for both of us, they really are just rubber-stamping obstruction that could very easily be made much more difficult by the majority, so difficult in fact that filibuster attempts would once again become rare, extreme and difficult to accomplish.

I suppose our leadership has it's reasons for allowing opposition with such ease, possibly even good reasons, I only wish they would let us know what those reasons are so that we could have more conclusions available to us than "spineless", "ineffective" or complicit.

As much as I hate the policies and goals of the current Republican party, you have to admit they have proven that obstruction can be made much more difficult, none of us have forgotten their leadership when they held the majority.

[tritsofme]

20. I'm curious as to why this tactic would not work.

Once a cloture petition is filed, it is my understanding that there must be a vote on cloture.

Wouldn't the failure of cloture have the practical effect of killing the bill?

[Dragonfli]

22. I don't understand your last question

How could a failed vote to end debate end debate? A vote on cloture is a vote to force the end of debate.

I am sorry but I can't answer a question I don't understand.

[tabbycat31]

17. thanks from the OP

[Dragonfli]

18. YW - Nice Blog by the way /nt

[tabbycat31]

24. thanks :-)

feel free to comment.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. The problem is that when you have 40+ people you can filibuster for a very long time

Assuming that all 40 are genuinely ready to engage in the actual filibustering, and if it is a truly party line thing they will be. What they would effectively do is just take turns yielding the floor to each other so that they don't have to each stand there for unreasonable amounts of time. In theory this could be checked by the two speech rule which states that each Senator may only give two speeches on the same bill on the same legislative day. Now you can extend the legislative day by keeping the senate in session around the clock but keep in mind that the Democrats have to stay in the building to be ready to vote if the filibuster should be broken.

With the Civil Rights Act of '64 they kept the Senate in session for 6 days a week and the people filibustering did so for 50+ days. There were far fewer than 40 of them too because while they initially couldn't get enough votes for cloture, not all of the nays on cloture were really willing to filibuster. Cloture also required 2/3rds back then. Ultimately Mansfield and Dirksen watered down the bill to get Republicans on board and got cloture.

So while in theory you are correct that you could call their bluff and force a filibuster by clearing the calendar and just putting that bill under consideration, if there really are 40+ people willing to filibuster then the Senate could be stalled for months. More than likely the majority party would either give up or compromise with certain members of the minority to get cloture (something they could do anyway without forcing a real filibuster). Standing on the floor reading the phone book all day is difficult when you're the only one doing it. When you have 40 other people to trade off with, it becomes substantially easier. Meanwhile the majority party, which is expected to actually govern, can't get any business through the senate with the filibuster going on.

[democrattotheend]

6. 3/5, not 60

3/5 of all senators duly chosen and sworn. I believe they might have been able to pass the thing with 59 votes last night, because 3/5 of 99 is 59.4.

[Dragonfli]

8. Thanks! I didn't know that bit - nt

[Hosnon]

14. Nate Silver (I believe) brought that point up last week, but I question whether 59

is sufficient.

If 3/5 is required, 59 is not mathematically sufficient (59 is sufficient with 98 or fewer Senators).

Is there a Senate rule that allows rounding down?

[Two Americas]

9. depends

Republicans do whatever it takes to advance their agenda, no matter how few seats they have. They could probably be successful with 5.

Democrats - we don't know how many it will take. 60? 70? 120?

[AtomicKitten]

15. 60 is the threshold to break a filibuster.

[DCBob]

21. I suspect this will become less of an issue come Jan 2009.

With a 58-42 or 59-41 majority it should be fairly easy to get a few R's to side with the Dems on most bills.