Filibuster

**Astaroth** · February 04, 2012, 05:57 AM

In the US Senate, it is possible for a minority to essentially veto a bill by talking it out (filibuster) for whatever reason. I personally consider that to be undemocratic and pointless (and yes, the US is in fact a representative democracy).

Arguments:

There are already plenty of checks and balances in the US system: There is the president's veto, the House/Senate, the three branches of government and so on. Restricting what a democratically elected majority (in House AND Senate) can do in terms of legislative even further is unnecessary.
Senators' speaking time is not limited because they were supposed to be able to present their thoughts without any arbitrary restrictions. This was not intended to be a means of veto.
The argument that the filibuster prevents the "dictatorship of the majority" is nonsense.
- For one, there are already plenty of checks and balances, see above.
- Secondly, there is a reason why regular laws require lower thresholds than amendments.
- Thirdly, a democratically elected legislative has to be able to act.

Filibusters do not result in proper compromises or a better result, but rather in obstructionism and holding the other party hostage. This results in poor compromises which are actually worse than what both parties originally wanted.
Filibusters give individual senators and their minority undue weight compared to the other elected officials. This is not in accordance with the very principles of a representative democracy.

And no, this has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats in particular, both parties are guilty of it (though perhaps not to the same degree) and I think it should be abolished altogether.

Thoughts?

**Matthias** · February 04, 2012, 01:05 PM

Of course it needs to be abolished. Yes, it is undemocratic. Not only that, but rarely is a filibuster actually engaged in. Rather, there is merely the threat of a filibuster and that's all it takes, essentially making it so that a supermajority is required. There might at least be a political price to pay if politicians had to filibuster to preserve some of the things they want.

The real underlying issue however is the Senate. It needs to be abolished. It is an incredibly undemocratic institution. It gives small population states huge political power compared to other states.

Both the Senate itself and especially the filibuster allow extremists that do not want to compromise to essentially stop government from working.

If we are a representative democracy, we should have proportional representation.

**KngGilgamesh** · February 04, 2012, 09:55 PM

Agreed filibuster is a rather corrupt system...along with most of the rules of congress....they just screamed incompetence when i learned of them from the partisan gerrymandering to riders...though I'm not sure how they can be fixed when congressmen love them so much. I don't think supreme court has any jurisdiction in this area...

**Condottiere 40K** · February 04, 2012, 10:20 PM

As I understand it, the Senators are supposed to directly represent the interests of their States, and this tactic was meant enough time to delay legislation to permit 19th century communications to get back from their capitol with instructions as to how to deal with the issue.

**Sphere** · February 06, 2012, 11:08 AM

I think curtailing the filibuster in certain area's is a good idea. It already is in terms of budget related bills, which might prove impossible to pass if 60 was the required number.

Executive appointments is the most glaring area where things are out of whack, especially since the Constitution puts the power of appointments squarely in the hands of the President, even allowing for appointments without the Senate's consent in certain situations. In this way the Senates influence over appointments was supposed to be tangential, rather than central.

For a long time, the Senate rarely if ever held up an appointment, but over the years as the Senate has has changed political hands, the use of the filibuster or other Senatorial proceedures to block appointments has been ramped by an eye-for-eye political approach such that right now 200 such appointments are languishing in the Senate, most of which are rather mundane appointments.

Judicial appointments are especially troubling. Not Supreme Court appointments, as they are front page news and as such the Senate is on it's best behavior, giving a timely and usually bipartisan approval. Rather lower court appointments get held up indefinitely such that many good candidates withdraw their nomination, or rather avoid the process all together, which in the end hurts the Judicial system which is starved of talented judges.

So I think there is no great harm in letting the Senate keep it's filibuster system in the core area's of government assigned to it, that is drafting of legislation. But when it comes to its "advise and consent" duties of appointments in the other two branches of government, it is currently stepping on the toes of what are supposed to be co-equal branches. And I can only see this escalating unless the Senate proceedures and voting rules for appoinments are changed.

**Kanaric** · February 06, 2012, 11:15 AM

Filibusters for compromise and help people with minority opinions get their side in the discussion. It is important for the democratic process. The majority shouldn't be able to rule with an iron fist and a filibuster defends against that. One or the greatest tools of democracy. Sure it can be used for "evil" or against progress however it is used for good as well bit that is the political process in general

**Stark of Winterfell** · February 06, 2012, 11:19 AM

I wouldn't mind the filibuster so much now if Senators had to actually stand there and filibuster. If they care so much about the issue, then they have to stand in front of the nation and read the phone book, a novel, or whatever else they have handy until they get their way or get sick of standing there. None of this "threat of filibuster=filibuster" stuff.

**Astaroth** · February 06, 2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Kanaric

Filibusters for compromise and help people with minority opinions get their side in the discussion. It is important for the democratic process. The majority shouldn't be able to rule with an iron fist and a filibuster defends against that. One or the greatest tools of democracy. Sure it can be used for "evil" or against progress however it is used for good as well bit that is the political process in general

There are already plenty of checks and balances. Giving undue weight to a MINORITY of one of TWO chambers of the legislative is quite ridiculous.

Theoretically, the Senators that represent about 15% of the population could for all intents and purposes veto a law that has the support of 85% of the people of America as represented by their Senators and the complete House. (Since each state has the same amount of senators in the Senate)

**MathiasOfAthens** · February 06, 2012, 02:10 PM

I was thinking about this today. The filibuster just shows how

ed up our system is. Govt shuts down and stalls and nothing moves forward after a party wins office. The filibuster isnt some sort of counterweight or boost to a minority party. Its pretty much a roadblock to anything... it shuts down progress.

It needs to be removed but unfortunately the Republicans would never go for that unless they were in the Majority in the Senate? Same with the Dems... prob. But I for one would be for the abolishment of the filibuster regardless of any party. Even if the Tea Party controlled the Senate I would be for the abolishment of the Filibuster.

Whatever party wins the majority in the Senate they should have leave to rule. The filibuster prevents them from ruling or governing.

**Phier** · February 06, 2012, 02:34 PM

The filibuster is awesome, for the very reason it takes 60 votes.

If the American people are that closely divided on something then it should be greater than a simple majority vote. Personally I'd be happy if every vote took 60%.

For most people this is how the filibuster works:
My side is in the majority: "This is whats wrong with the system!"
My side is in the minority: "Thank god for the filibuster!"

**xcorps** · February 06, 2012, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens

I was thinking about this today. The filibuster just shows how

ed up our system is. Govt shuts down and stalls and nothing moves forward after a party wins office. The filibuster isnt some sort of counterweight or boost to a minority party. Its pretty much a roadblock to anything... it shuts down progress.

It needs to be removed but unfortunately the Republicans would never go for that unless they were in the Majority in the Senate? Same with the Dems... prob. But I for one would be for the abolishment of the filibuster regardless of any party. Even if the Tea Party controlled the Senate I would be for the abolishment of the Filibuster.

Whatever party wins the majority in the Senate they should have leave to rule. The filibuster prevents them from ruling or governing.

The United States is not the only country with filibuster rules.

The filibuster is not an absolute power. It can be overridden by a majority vote.

**MathiasOfAthens** · February 06, 2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

The filibuster is awesome, for the very reason it takes 60 votes.

If the American people are that closely divided on something then it should be greater than a simple majority vote. Personally I'd be happy if every vote took 60%.

For most people this is how the filibuster works:
My side is in the majority: "This is whats wrong with the system!"
My side is in the minority: "Thank god for the filibuster!"

Except I literally said I wouldnt care if the filibuster was done away with with a majority Republican. I think there are already enough checks. You dont need an extra check in the senate that prevents legislation from moving forward.

Originally Posted by xcorps

The United States is not the only country with filibuster rules.

The filibuster is not an absolute power. It can be overridden by a majority vote.

True but the UK uses a simple majority and I assume Canada does as well. So with that said if the US lowered the amount needed to end debate I would be satisfied.

**Phier** · February 07, 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens

Except I literally said I wouldnt care if the filibuster was done away with with a majority Republican. I think there are already enough checks. You dont need an extra check in the senate that prevents legislation from moving forward.

Legislation that is not supported by 60% shouldn't move forward.

**Kanaric** · February 06, 2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

The filibuster is awesome, for the very reason it takes 60 votes.

If the American people are that closely divided on something then it should be greater than a simple majority vote. Personally I'd be happy if every vote took 60%.

For most people this is how the filibuster works:
My side is in the majority: "This is whats wrong with the system!"
My side is in the minority: "Thank god for the filibuster!"

Yup great explanation Phier.

**xcorps** · February 06, 2012, 03:44 PM

If discussion of a filibuster stops legislation, then it's not the filibuster causing the problem. It's the lack of willpower by the majority.

**KngGilgamesh** · February 06, 2012, 04:17 PM

well other senators are unwilling to overturn a filibuster, because they know that they will make use of it themselves and don't want to antagonize people. its quite hard to overturn a filibuster. Instead of being a tool to guarantee minority rights it is just creating political gridlocks, a tool to basically kill bills interest groups oppose, a medium for hyper-pluralism?

**xcorps** · February 06, 2012, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by KngGilgamesh

. its quite hard to overturn a filibuster. Instead of being a tool to guarantee minority rights it is just creating political gridlocks, a tool to basically kill bills interest groups oppose, a medium for hyper-pluralism?

What?

A tool to guarantee minory rights?? A medium for hyperpluralism??

IT'S A PROCEDURAL PROCESS. It has nothing to do with minority rights. In fact, it was used AGAINST minority rights.

Political gridlocks are a GOOD thing.

**MathiasOfAthens** · February 06, 2012, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by xcorps

Political gridlocks are a GOOD thing.

Only when they prevent tyranny. In the case of the last couple years gridlocks have been dentrimental to our economy and political system. Gridlocks are not a good thing... at least they havnt been.

**Matthias** · February 06, 2012, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by KngGilgamesh

well other senators are unwilling to overturn a filibuster, because they know that they will make use of it themselves and don't want to antagonize people. its quite hard to overturn a filibuster. Instead of being a tool to guarantee minority rights it is just creating political gridlocks, a tool to basically kill bills interest groups oppose, a medium for hyper-pluralism?

Yes, and the filibuster is being abused like never before now. It used to be used sparingly, but when you get extremists in power, there is no shame. It's a tool that in the hands of extremists is simply a weapon to stop a government from being able to govern on nearly ever possible piece of legislation. And now, if Republicans ever gain control of the Senate, you can be assured that Democrats will abuse it just as much now that Republicans have set a new standard of insanity. It's a bad precedent and won't get better at this rate.

It's akin to using the debt cieling to hold the nation hostage. In other words, its a subversion of democracy in the hands of an extremist party.

But then again, so is the Senate, and the Senate needs to go.

The filibuster is awesome, for the very reason it takes 60 votes.

If the American people are that closely divided on something then it should be greater than a simple majority vote. Personally I'd be happy if every vote took 60%

That's quite a leap in logic. Because some legislation in the Senate can't get 60 votes, it means the American people are closely divided on it? Wow, that's a bit naive.