There are calls on the left to scrap the filibuster. The idea behind the filibuster is that when the country is closely divided, a strong minority can keep extreme positions from becoming law, which promotes bipartisan compromise. The filibuster doesn’t seem to be engendering bipartisanship very much these days. The Democrats weakened the filibuster during the Obama administration to be able to get some cabinet and federal court (but not Supreme Court) seats filled. The Republicans in the Trump administration eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. People are suggesting that if the Democrats take the Senate, they should just scrap the filibuster altogether.
I think they should retain the filibuster but modify it. Senators should be allowed to filibuster but a cloture vote should be passable on a vote of more than half of Senators only if those Senators cumulatively represent more than 60% (or perhaps 2/3) of the population. For counting purposes, each Senator is credited with representing half the population of the state. If the state, for whatever reason, has only one Senator, they still get credit for only half the population. Thoughts?
Retain the filibuster but make it actually require talking – the filibustering party needs to stay and talk, continuously, and if they stop at any time than the filibuster ends.
So the debate about decisions that potentially affect all Americans comes down to how stamina and bladder capacity an individual Senator has? :dubious:
When the ACA was debated, there were public hearings, testimony from industry, consumer groups, insurance companies, etc. Republicans offered amendments, some of which were adopted. They were allowed to be part of the process. None of them voted for it because they took a vow on Inauguration Day 2009 that they would not cooperate with the administration on any issue. When the Republican tax cuts were passed, no Democrats were invited, no hearings were held, and Democrats were not allowed to even see the bill until it was time to vote on it. Do you think there’s a difference?
I don’t like this idea. It’s giving some Senators more power than others, based on what state they represent. I feel that every Senator should be equal.
Just from the standpoint of human nature, killing the filibuster would be much easier than modifying it. Once changing it gets on the table, the Senate would get bogged down in a debate between multiple proposals to modify the filibuster, and odds are none of them would ever come to fruition.
I, too, have my Perfect Pony Plan for limiting the use of the filibuster. But it won’t happen, while killing the filibuster outright is at least a possibility. And if the choice is between keeping the filibuster for regular legislation, or killing it, it needs to go.
I’m not a fan of the filibuster. At all. So, how about making continuous tap-dancing the requirement? That way, it’ll be tough to keep it up and be hilarious to boot!
I am not sure what states would have only one Senator.
Nonetheless, here is a ul of the most and least populous states in the US. It would appear that, under your proposal, the Senators from Georgia have more voting power than Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North and South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, and Maine, put together. As mentioned, that sort of defeats the purpose of the Senate (as opposed to the House).
[list=A][li]You would need some legally defined date on which the population of each state was established. Maybe “as of the date each Senator was elected”, or “as of the date of the last census” or something. []As also mentioned, it will be difficult to persuade the distinguished members of the Senate from, say, Vermont that his or her vote counts for about a tenth of the vote of the distinguished members of the Senate from Texas or Florida. And []The Constitution guarantees each State a republican (small r) form of government. Not a democratic (small d) one. This sounds a lot more like a small d than a small r.[/ul]The rules of the Senate are set (mostly) by the Senate. So, maybe, it would survive even a Constitutional challenge. [/li]
A Constitutional challenge does not seem to me to be the challenge it would need to worry about. More like the challenge of convincing Wyoming or Alaska that their votes should count a lot less. “What’s in it for me/my state?” is a worthwhile question, and I don’t see an obvious answer.
I’ve never liked the filibuster. It’s either 1) an attempt to delay something that’s inevitable (if so, then what purpose does the delaying do?) or 2) an attempt to game the system by preventing something from passing in the amount of time allotted, in which it’s rather underhanded. It would be akin to a football defensive player deliberately sitting on top of the football to prevent the opposing offense from being able to snap the ball before the game clock expires.
If a Congressional minority wants to object, then object so legitimately. If you don’t have the votes to stop the majority, then too bad, but a filibuster is a rather childish and petulant way of trying to obstruct.
I suspect that it may be unconstitutional to formulate the senate rules so that some Senators get move votes than others. But if it survived, then the next time the Republicans take back the Senate they will pass a rule that the filibuster only works if Senators voting for 60% of the land area of the United states votes for an end of cloture.
I’d call it questionable. The Constitution says “each Senator shall have one vote” and I would interpret that to mean that all their votes should be equal in value.
