It's the modified filibuster rule that causes a lot of the problems.

[Kablooie]

With the Senate filibuster rule the way it is, one single opposing voice can kill a broadly popular bill by simply saying "I filibuster". It's crazy.

As a result we will always need 60% to pass a bill instead of the simple majority, 51%, that it's supposed to be.

A filibuster is not supposed to be a simple statement of disagreement. It was designed to be a stalling technique that could be physically taxing so that it would not be used frivolously. It allows added time for views on a topic but is not designed to allow one individual to casually kill a majority voted bill anytime he wants. It also would bring a tremendous amount of public attention to the filibusterer because it would stop the Senate cold. This would bring in public opinion either for or against the individual which could affect the results.

In the current Senate rules, actual speeches are not required. Just a statement that you are filibustering. This makes it just about certain in today's government that any bill developed by Democrats will have to have a solid 60%.

This rule should be revised to it's original state so that a filibuster isn't something that any Senator can casually bring up to kill a bill he doesn't agree with.

[SoCalDem]

1. I'd like to see a conflict-of-interest rule enforced

anyone voting on a bill that favors an industry or entity could not be voted on by anyone who got money from them, or anyone who has ANY family member employed by them :evilgrin:

and the participation total would be lowered by that number..so 60% would be a lot lower:)

[Cant trust em]

2. Yeah. I'd like to see a return to the filibuster we all learned about in civics class

Where some guy reads from the telephone book for hours, then passes off to someone else.

[WeDidIt]

3. And that rule requires 67 votes to change

Sad, but true.

[Atticus]

5. Actually, no.

It would take 67 votes to "officially" change the rule for all future votes, but, a simple majority, 51 votes, is what I understand would be necessary to "change" or "suspend" the rule for one particular vote. A former parliamentarian of the US Senate explained it on Big Ed's radio show today. Here's how he explained it.

A Democrat would be debating in the Senate and Reid would call the question for a vote. A Republican would object saying that 60 votes would be necessary to end debate and enable a vote.
Reid would ask the parliamentarian if that was correct. He would answer "Yes. Sixty votes are required".
Reid would respond "I believe that is incorrect. You are overruled. A simple majority is all that is required to end debate."
He (Reid) would then call for a vote to SUSTAIN HIS RULING and that vote would require ONLY 51 votes to sustain Reid's ruling overruling the parliamentarian.

Of course, once it's done, it will be done again. Soon, opposition to "officially" changing the rule and ending the undemocratic filibuster practice will dwindle and the filibuster will be abolished.

This is what people who REALLY WANTED universal health care would be doing.

[WeDidIt]

6. That's the nuclear option and ends the filibuster for all time

because once used, the filibuster can never again stand.

It's a terrible thing to do and I oppose it with every fiber of my being.

[Atticus]

7. It is, indeed, the "nuclear option". So, you are against majority rule? nt

[WeDidIt]

9. Sir, I am opposed to MINORITY rule

For a Senate comprised of 2 Senators from every state on any legislation with a vote of 51 Senators, can represent no more than 19% of the nation's population! (2008 census estimates based upon the popluations of the bottom 26 states compared to the whole of the nation).

The filibuster, though it works against us presently, is a reasonable check on the tyranny of the minority. I would rather a 3/5 majority in the Senate be required to advance legislation than a 1/5 majority of the nation to dictate legislation.

[Kablooie]

11. Hmm. Interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way.

[Selatius]

4. No, threats of a filibuster have been used as a reason to abandon contentious legislation.

In the past, whenever a Republican issued a statement saying he intended to filibuster a bill, Harry Reid, rather than seeing if the guy is bluffing, simply folds up his tent and goes home. They don't actually make them filibuster a bill anymore because both sides have found it allows both parties to escape any kind of public accountability. The Democratic leadership can always claim it wouldn't have passed anyway, and the Republicans can claim it was bad legislation regardless if that was true.

[HughMoran]

8. I agree - make them stand and talk

Let the old codgers on the right speak until they drop.

[Demoiselle]

10. It causes problems and gives cover.

The perfect excuse for doing nothing. I agree they should force anybody who threatens a filibuster to actually DO it!
And then, maybe, they should just get rid of it.