Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed?

[Thunder]

My father suggests that we pass a new rule, that a filibuster cannot take place until there has been a week of breathing room and time out.

And then, if they still wanna filibuster, it can be broken by 55 Senators..and not 60.

This way, the Senate cannot be held hostage by 41 Senators, which is a clear minority. 45 votes is more representative of the Senate, and of the will of the American people.

what u guys think?

 

[mortimer]

I suspect your father would be just as happy to change the filibuster rule from 60 senators to 59.

 

[Thunder]

I suspect your father would be just as happy to change the filibuster rule from 60 senators to 59.

55/45 is better. it means a larger minority of the Senate is required to impose its will upon 330 million people.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It should be done away with completely. I've never understood why it existed in the first place.

 

[Thunder]

It should be done away with completely. I've never understood why it existed in the first place.

to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

it instead allows the tyranny of the minority...or the super-majority..depending on how you look at it.

 

[Francesca R]

It's there so that your politicians have to really want something to pass it. Tyranny of the supermajority is supposed to be better than tyranny of the simple one.

 

[Francesca R]

it instead allows the tyranny of the minority

Well keeping the status quo probably isn't thought of as tyranny.

 

[Thunder]

Well keeping the status quo probably isn't thought of as tyranny.

i was being facetious. i don't consider it to really be "tyranny".

undo influence? perhaps.

i believe the separation of the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, should be enough to prevent bad things from becoming law. the filibuster rule seems not only to add possibly unnecessary red-tape to our government, but really does step on the notion of one man/one vote.

41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic.

adjusting the number of votes necessary for a filibuster to 45 votes, would make things slightly more fair and representative.

 

[Beerina]

I submit the entire legislative process should be overhauled, with no law being passed in the first place without a 3/4 majority.

Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it. Where's the evidence that the barest abstraction of might makes right will somehow yield good lawmaking? This is a free country, not some sick game being played by populists.

Oh wait, nevermind.

 

[Ziggurat]

it instead allows the tyranny of the minority

A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

Given the thing Washington has done for us over the years, I would suggest inaction is the preferred status.

 

[Ziggurat]

Given the thing Washington has done for us over the years, I would suggest inaction is the preferred status.

Quite so.

 

[Francesca R]

i believe the separation of the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, should be enough to prevent bad things from becoming law.

It depends on what the rules are. In the UK the lower house (Commons) is supreme and can pretty much ignore the votes of the upper house (Lords--not elected anyway), and the Queen (erm, not elected either) hasn't vetoed any acts since 1708 (different queen).

So some people think the parliamentary system puts too much power in the hands of MPs.

41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic.

It's a check on power. Checks don't work if you can sweep them away when they do something you don't like (such as kill the health care act).

 

[Francesca R]

Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it.

There's also the matter of by the time it gets to a legislative vote, it no longer bears much resemblance to what the population wanted anyway.

 

[Thunder]

Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it.

that's why it should be 55 votes to beat a filibuster. not only is it more than a majority of the Senate, but if its the right states it can be dramatically more then a majority of the American people.

 

[Brainster]

The rules should be changed so that a filibuster requires 25 Democrats or 75 Republicans. I suspect, but am not certain, that then liberals would think it fair.

 

[mumblethrax]

A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

When the current state of affairs is glaringly unjust.

The filibustering of civil rights legislation in the 50s and 60s is a good example of the tyranny of political inertia.

 

[Thunder]

When the current state of affairs is glaringly unjust.

The filibustering of civil rights legislation in the 50s and 60s is a good example of the tyranny of political inertia.

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

 

[Francesca R]

If "not enacting legislation" is imposing your will, and "enacting legislation" is also imposing your will, then your notion of fairness is going to be violated some of the time whatever unless you redraw district and state boundaries as well.

 

[Random]

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster, it just needs to be enforced. You want to stop a bill, you have to stop the whole Senate. Instead, we just have this dippy, “well, they could filibuster in theory, therefore we can’t get anything done” agreement. Make the filibuster difficult again and most of the controversy would go away.