I still don't get it. Tell me again why filibuster is so bad?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

I remember the first House floor debate ,when we had all our women line up and talk compassion. The stark difference when the other side started "money, cost, money cost" was astounding.

Their filibuster on this issue would make them look just like they are - heartless bastards who only care about money, big business, and power. We are totally naive to think they don't know this too.

I bet if we called their bluff on a filibuster they would be shitting in their pants.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. The current Senate Rules do not require a filibuster, only a threat...

If a filibuster required someone to talk constantly and kept every Senator looked to the seat until they voted to end the filibuster, there wouldn't be many.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. so what constitutes a threat? not having 60 votes? so what

happens when there is a threat? sounds like a vicious circle. can one actually demand that the actual filibuster take place?

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Telling them you insist on a procedureal filibuser vote. That requires 60 votes...

They can make sure that nothing gets done.

Some things can not be filibustered. The fixt bill for HCR uses reconcilation rules and only requires a simple majority. All budget bills use reconciliaiton and can not be filibustered.

But they can not pass everything by reconciliation.

[theoldman]

2. I have had the same question.

Why not let the person talk until they ran out of spit?

[liberalpragmatist]

4. There is no way to force a "real" filibuster anymore

"Debate" doesn't require anyone to keep talking, and it takes 60 votes to end debate, so Republicans could simply go home, save for one member to "suggest the absence of a quorum" (confusingly, a quorum is only half the Senate, but if any one senator suggests there is no quorum, no quorum can be called.)

This link at HuffPo describes what would happen:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

Some suggest that the way to fix the filibuster is to go back to the old school talkathon filibusters. I actually still don't think it would work. The reason they tried to reform that in the first place was that while it wasn't used anywhere near as often, it was still used - and very effectively used - to kill controversial bills. Until the 1960s, it was only limited to civil rights bills, because its stigma didn't let it get used on other bills. But once civil rights legislation passed, filibusters on all other controversial bills became much more common.

The thing is, talking a bill to death WORKED. The first time a filibuster was ever defeated with a cloture motion was the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I think the filibuster needs to be curtailed dramatically. At some point, a simple majority should be able to end debate. I'd be fine with a filibuster as a delaying technique, but not a firm veto.

[xchrom]

6. +1

[DCBob]

5. Mainly because a relatively small minority can stop legislation.

If all legislation needs 60+ votes then not much would ever get done, especially in this political environment.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. A chamber that gives acreage more voting weight than people

and also allows 40% +1 of its members to veto any legislation is not a form of 'representative democracy'.

The Senate is an abomination that should go the way of the House of Lords.

[DrToast]

8. Well, I can only speak for myself, but I prefer Democracy

[marshall]

10. It's all relative

The goodness or badness depends on who is in power.

[grantcart]

11. Here is some background

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/234

When the constitution was written the Senate was established as a non democratic check on the House.

Senators were not even elected by the population.

At that time Senators from the smallest states could stop legislation from passing with only 30% of th e population now it can be done with only 17%




In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one Congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); at no time in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-Congressmen states.




The 20 smallest states with 40 senators have the power to stop all legislation in the United States Congress. The total population of these 20 states is 30 million, 6 million less than California and only 10% of the population.

People in small states have 20 times the legislative power of the big states.

The US Senate is the only constituted body in a democratic Republic that gets increasingly less democratic each year.

[MadBadger]

12. I dont mind the filibuster. I just think it should require less votes to break it.

Like 55%.

[4lbs]

13. I'm for something similar, that will gradually reduce the amount of votes necessary to overcome a

filibuster until you can't filibuster anymore.

That way, a filibuster can only delay, not kill legislation altogether.

The first time a bill is filibustered, require 60 votes as normal now. If they don't get it, it "fails" to proceed to a vote and is delayed a month.

The next month, re-present the bill. If it's filibustered again, it takes 58 votes now to overcome it. A failure to get 58 delays the bill another month.

The next month, re-present the bill. Another filibuster, the third one, takes 56 votes now to overcome it. Another month delay with failure.

The next month, re-present the bill. Filibuster #4 requires only 54 votes to overcome it. Failure still? Delay a month.

The next month, re-present the bill. Filibuster #5, the final filibuster, only requires 52 votes to overcome it. If there are only 51 votes, and not 52, it gets delayed a final time for a month.

The next month, re-present the bill. All filibusters have been done. No more filibustering. The bill now proceeds to a straight up-and-down vote. 51 votes to pass.


Thus, the most any bill can be delayed from reaching the final vote is 6 months, with a gradually weakening filibuster process like I proposed.