How to fix the filibuster.

[Meldread]

I think my solution is both fair, good for governance, and therefore good for the country.

In order to sustain a filibuster you must:

1. Have at least 35 votes. This means to break a filibuster you need 65 votes.

2. You have 30 days to draft and propose opposing legislation. (Effectively, you're saying: "This bill is so bad it can't be fixed with amendments. Look at this bill instead!")

3. If those supporting the filibuster fail to have opposing legislation by the end of the 30 days, they may request additional time, but to get this requires a majority vote (51 votes) on the Senate floor. A failure to get 51 votes to sustain a filibuster ends the filibuster, allowing a majority vote to pass the originally proposed legislation.

4. If opposing legislation is drafted and put forward before the end of the 30 days, it may be considered by the Senate only if it receives a majority vote (51 votes). A failure to obtain the majority vote ends the filibuster and kills the opposing legislation.

Now, what does this accomplish?

- It ends the "Just Say No" bloc in the Senate. It requires them to actually propose alternative ideas of their own, which still require a majority vote to pass. Thus, if their ideas are good they can move forward, if not they die.

- It preserves majority rule. While it slows down the process, it's designed to create debate (in fact it -demands- debate), not slow it down for the sake of slowing it down.

- If a majority of Senators like the way the opposing legislation is shaping up, they can choose to sustain the filibuster if it takes longer than 30 days to draft opposing legislation. This is a good thing because in order to get the majority vote it FORCES the minority party to work with members of the majority party. It forces compromise and has everyone working toward a solution to the problem, rather than simply erecting a roadblock.

- It leads to better governance, because it has people debating issues and ideas, not simply carpet bombing the opposition in an attempt to score cheap political points.

- It's fair, because it allows the opposition a chance to voice their dissent (if nothing else), but still demands that they gain the support of the majority of the Senate.

- By putting a time limit and requirements on what is needed to sustain a filibuster it ensures that the threat of a filibuster alone is not enough to require a super majority for everything. If the Senate has a clear and solid majority in their camp, it makes the filibuster useless aside from slowing down the process (for one month), and allows them to just shrug and let them filibuster.

- It's good for the country, because it actually allows the Senate to participate in government without grinding to a halt.

- It ends things like the Louisiana Purchase and the Ben Nelson buy off. It doesn't allow a small handful of Senators (or even just one) to hold legislation hostage if the majority support it.

[notesdev]

1. The alternative idea

"take no action"

boom, in 20 seconds I figured out how they would implement your proposal. Now it only takes 35 Senators to filibuster.

You have to realize you're dealing with some of the most corrupt people on the planet here. They will not be reformed, they need to be replaced wholesale.

[Meldread]

2. Oh, I agree they need to all be cleaned out.

It would be great if there was some way for the American people to create a referendum that put every single member of the Congress up for re-election so we could sweep them all out....

...but that's an entirely different discussion all together. :P This is about Senate procedure (a far more boring subject, as evidenced by the lack of responses to the thread. :P)

[timeforpeace]

3. There can be no opposing legislation if the minority doesn't want it to begin with. What are you

going to do, force them? If it wasn't their idea in the first place, they sure as hell aren't going to write legislation for it, nor should they have to. Ridiculous.

[Meldread]

4. Then they have 30 days to make their case.

If they can sway enough Senators to kill the bill then they're successful. If they can't make their case in 30 days, and the majority of Senators don't vote to extend the filibuster, then they lose and the bill moves to the Senate Floor for a majority vote.

It's completely fair and makes total sense. It allows the opposition to have a voice. If they have enough votes to kill the bill then it's pointless to filibuster in the first place, and the only reason to filibuster is to prevent majority rule in the Senate. The whole point of writing opposing legislation is to try and offer up an alternative, in hopes of crafting a bill that can get broader support in the Senate as a whole. If the minority is just flat out dead opposed to the legislation to the point where they are arguing "just kill it" then they have 30 days to sway fellow Senators. A failure to do that allows the legislation to move forward, and prevents one or two Senators from holding out in attempts to get nice deals for the lobbies and state they represent.

Mark my words, as a result of this health care debate, you're going to see a lot more Senator hold outs in exchange for insane deals on even some of the most basic legislation. The Senate is about to become even more dysfunctional.

[backscatter712]

5. I like Harkin's idea better.

After all, the purpose of unlimited debate rules in the Senate, during the time of the Founding Fathers, was to prevent a bare majority from zipping to the Senate chambers in the middle of the night and passing obnoxious legislation before opposition could react and demand a debate.

Then, unscrupulous Senators figured out how to game the system and the filibuster was born.

Harkin's proposal is to solve the original problem that unlimited debate was intended to solve - that of midnight bills being slammed through with no debate.

In his proposal, the first cloture vote requires 60 votes, just like today. Then, after a minimum of 30 hours of formal debate, the next cloture vote can go through with only 57 votes. Then after 30 more hours of debate, the next cloture vote only requires 54 votes. After 30 more hours of debate, subsequent cloture votes only require a basic majority of 51 votes.

So there's plenty of time guaranteed to debate the bill (unless a supermajority decides to close debate early), but the use of filibusters to block a bill from passage entirely is no longer possible.

[Meldread]

6. That's faster, it's true, but that's -NOT- how the Founding Fathers envisioned the Senate.

Harkin's idea would be much faster, but I prefer mine because it allows a longer time for debate and negotiations. It also attempts to turn the Senate into a moderating force, whereas compared to the House it tends to swing wildly back and forth.

---

"After all, the purpose of unlimited debate rules in the Senate, during the time of the Founding Fathers, was to prevent a bare majority from zipping to the Senate chambers in the middle of the night and passing obnoxious legislation before opposition could react and demand a debate."

I think it's important to understand exactly how the Founding Fathers envisioned the Senate in the first place. They envisioned the Senate being filled with aristocrats, similar to the House of Lords in England at the time. The idea was to have the Senate be filled with wealthier and (in their minds) wiser individuals. It was to be a stabilizing force, NOT elected democratically, but selected by state legislators. They were supposed to be a type of republican nobility - to counter what Madison saw as the 'fecklessness and passion' that would exist among the House.

In order to be selected by the State Legislators a Senator had to hold a significant amount of property in order to be deemed "worthy and sensible" enough for the position.

This didn't change until 1913 and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">17th Constitutional Amendment passed that required Senators be elected by popular vote.

This is important to understand because it puts the Senate's intended role into prospective.