# Should Procedural Filibustering Be Abolished? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789 "2009-02-20T23:51:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/41 "2009-02-25T16:15:12Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The remedy for that lies in the polls, as I stated. If the country as a whole wanted a filibuster proof majority, they would have voted one in to office. But why, **Oakminster**? You’ve repeated this position, but you haven’t supported it. Remember this - the filibuster is a procedural rule, not a constitutional perquisite. As such, it was created by a simple majority vote\*\*. And it was created for the self-interest of the Senators, not for the benefit of the country - if a supermajority is needed to pass legislation, the power of each Senator is enhanced. Why should the voters be required to vote in a supermajority to evade a procedure adopted by the Senate for its own self-interest? Why should the voters have to fix - and only an a temporary, _ad hoc_ basis - a problem the Senate created? There is no coherent rationale why, in a democracy, a simple majority is not sufficient to pass legislation. The FF’s recognized an extremely limited group of exceptions to majority rule. Please explain why the FF’s were in error in not making all legislation (other than the budget) subject to a Senatorial supermajority. Sua ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/42 "2009-02-25T16:21:31Z")
I think if you really believe in your case enough, you should work for it. Stand in front of congress and give speech after speech, holding the floor. Walk off and it is over. It is too easy now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/43 "2009-02-25T16:36:02Z")
And because it is too easy, it is too _frequent_. The minority doesn’t have to pick its fights now. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/44 "2009-02-26T03:15:56Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > You’re estimating voting based on a number six orders of magnitude smaller. “Inaccurate” is too weak a term for your conclusion. But that’s just saying that our democratic system is fundamentally inaccurate. It chooses Senators based on how the population is chopped up into 50 states. A 60% majority of the people doesn’t necessarily get you a 60% majority of the Senate. **Oakminster** was operating on the underlying assumption that the composition of the Senate reflected the wishes of the people. I was pointing out that that assumption was false. It still is. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/45 "2009-02-26T07:56:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > But that’s just saying that our democratic system is fundamentally inaccurate. It chooses Senators based on how the population is chopped up into 50 states. A 60% majority of the people doesn’t necessarily get you a 60% majority of the Senate. Your estimate is nowhere near accurate enough to say that 60% are on your side. If you want to make that claim, use the actual voting statistics. What you _don’t_ do is take a number from 0 to 100 that is based on the voting statistics (_a number you are arguing is fundamentally inaccurate_), use _that_ number to estimate the voting statistics, then generate a _fourth_ number which you believe is somehow better. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/46 "2009-02-26T10:50:31Z")
My point exactly. Thanks for making my argument better than I could. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/47 "2009-03-01T12:29:50Z")
The whole point of the filibuster is based on the misconception the original Senate had the Moving the Previous Question was a redundant motion. Because of this and the fact that there is no limit to debate, there is no efficient way for the Senate to force a vote. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/48 "2009-03-01T17:30:20Z")
The repubs would never filibuster. They said that it is wrong and they suggested nuking it only a few years ago. The nuke option was a big threat because the filibuster was just so evil. They would never be hypocritical enough to use it themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/49 "2009-03-01T19:04:55Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The repubs would never filibuster. They said that it is wrong and they suggested nuking it only a few years ago. The nuke option was a big threat because the filibuster was just so evil. They would never be hypocritical enough to use it themselves. I don’t think anyone would say that all filibustering is bad - its overuse is. One can criticise how it is used without criticising the thing itself. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/50 "2009-03-01T19:32:09Z")
I suppose we could always let the Republicans have their filibuster, and then do an end run around em anyway: [Obama may use 50-vote tactic on energy, healthcare:](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-considers-50-vote-strategy-on-energy-healthcare-2009-03-01.html) > [@](#): > > President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms. > > Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package. > But he added: “We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these… important things done this year.” Orszag called healthcare in particular “the key to our fiscal future.” > > Orszag made the comments on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” > > Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. We’ll probably end up with more pork in the bills if it’s done this way, but at least it’ll be Democrat pork for a change. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/51 "2009-03-01T19:59:17Z")
Bad. The nuclear option is no better an idea for the country because of who’d be using it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/52 "2009-03-01T21:39:47Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > I don’t think anyone would say that all filibustering is bad - its overuse is. > > One can criticize how it is used without criticizing the thing itself. Well, the implication here is that all filibustering is bad. I say that minorities or individuals in the Senate should be able to _delay_ legislation, but not stop it. But that would better involve use of the hold. As it is, I understand that the US political system has more opportunities to block legislation than most democracies. We have a bicameral legislature, an independently elected veto-wielder and a committee system. Still, most of us don’t mind occasional old-school filibusters, if only for entertainment reasons. It’s remarkable that the filibuster has so few defenders here, given that its use is taught in junior high school civics classes. ETA: ElvisL1ves: Defenders of the status quo must show why it is superior to the filibuster used sparingly over most of the Senate’s history. They must show how the filibuster is superior to Constitutional design. They must show why all bills should require a supermajority of 60 in the Senate, for that is what we have now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/53 "2009-03-01T23:05:40Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Defenders of the status quo must show why it is superior to the filibuster used sparingly over most of the Senate’s history. Defenders of any status quo normally don’t gotta show nothin’. > [@](#): > > They must show how the filibuster is superior to Constitutional design. The Constitution says nothing about simple majorities in the Senate. > [@](#): > > They must show why all bills should require a supermajority of 60 in the Senate, for that is what we have now. Ah, that’s it. You’re confusing the existence of the filibuster privilege itself with the lesser matter of how readily available it should be. The latter is the subject of this thread, not the former. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/54 "2009-03-02T01:09:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Defenders of any status quo normally don’t gotta show nothin’. No. It depends what statement is being made. “Your proposal is poorly thought out” is a different statement from “The status quo is superior.” > [@](#): > > The Constitution says nothing about simple majorities in the Senate. The filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution. Majority vote is implicit to some extent: but the explicit references to 2/3 majorities and the like make other interpretations dubious. I agree though that there’s no reason why the Senate can’t mandate a 60 vote supermajority rule. I’m not saying that would be unconstitutional; I’m saying that it’s not what the founders had in mind. > [@](#): > > Ah, that’s it. You’re confusing the existence of the filibuster privilege itself with the lesser matter of how readily available it should be. The latter is the subject of this thread, not the former. Er. The former is a subset of the latter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789.md?page=2)