benefits of a filibuster?

[Serket]

Filibuster

In a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to obstruct a particular decision from being taken by using up the time available, typically through an extremely long speech.

The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The term comes from the early 17th century, where Buccaneers were known in England as filibusters. This term had evolved from the Spanish filibustero which had come from the French word flibustier, which again evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter). In the United Kingdom Parliament, a bill defeated by this manouver is said to have been talked out.

A similar form of parliamentary obstruction practiced in the United States and other countries is called “slow walking”. It specifically refers to the extremely slow speed with which legislators walk to the podium to cast their ballots. For example, in Japan this tactic is known as a “cow walk”. In general it refers to the intentional delay of the normal business of the legislature.

Why are filibusters allowed? They just seem like stall tactics for senators who can’t defend their positions.

[DrDeth]

“… or who knows, the horse could learn to sing”

In other words a delay could bring results- and it never hurts their agenda.

[BrainGlutton]

@Serket

Why are filibusters allowed? They just seem like stall tactics for senators who can’t defend their positions.

It’s more than a stall tactic, it’s a form of liberum veto. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto) Any sufficiently determined senator can use the right of unlimited debate to prevent a given bill or motion from being put to a floor vote.

As to why they’re allowed – tradition. It’s not in the Constitution, which specifies the number of members required for a quorum to do business but otherwise leaves it to each house of Congress to write its own procedural rules. Originally both houses had the right of unlimited debate. The House of Representatives abolished it when its numbers grew too large. The Senate never did, though in 1917 it did adopt a rule allowing for “cloture” on debate by a vote of 2/3 of the members. See http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm.

[Blalron]

If you argue that filibusters are undemocratic and gives unreasonable power to a minority and this is therefore bad… well, the entire concept of the U.S Senate is undemocratic. It’s rather ridiculous that Alaska gets the same number of Senators as California. The only reason to have a senate AT ALL is as a mechanism to prevent the majority from always having their way. Viewed in that context, I don’t see why the Senate, a fundamentally undemocratic body to begin with, allows an angry minority to sandbag the whims of the majority.