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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Defenders of any status quo normally don’t gotta show nothin’.
The Constitution says nothing about simple majorities in the Senate.
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.
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 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.