A Senate Rule change that makes sense to me

[ThomWV]

Not 60 votes but 60% of the number of seated Senators or a direct reduction, one on one for those missing. Why should we be peanalized because of Republican's blocking Al Franken from being seated? I can live with the 60 vote requirement when there are 100 seated Senators, but right now we've got 98, so should the rules be change to bring down the number of votes required for passage in most cases in the Senate to 58 until the seats are filled?

[crikkett]

1. I've been away - didn't know Franken was being blocked.

Bush in News conference now playing on my TV: Mission Accomplished and some of his rhetoric has been a mistake. He could have landed Air Force One over Katrina. Except he didn't want law enforcement to be pulled out of their missions (meh)

[Statistical]

2. I would agree with that BUT

60% of 98 is 58.8.

So 58.8 votes would be needed. Since you can't get .8 votes you would need MORE not LESS.
Thus 59 votes.

I don't think it will matter but it does seem fair to me.