The U.S. Senate should revamp the filibuster - and I have an idea

[candide]

If a Senator’s vote is determined by the population of her state, how are you going to establish seniority? Cut the cards?

[Tired_and_Cranky]

@D_Anconia

How did “the Republicans in the Trump administration” eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees?

I meant during but congratulations on a truly fruitful contribution to the substantive discussion. It’s exactly what I’ve come to expect from today’s Republicans.

@RTFirefly

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.

Assume it’s a more perfect world. What would your better filibuster look like. I’m not saying my idea is the best, it’s just one that I think is better than today’s if we plan to keep the filibuster. I’m sincerely interested in what a filibuster should look like. Perhaps no filibuster is better than any alternative.

@Shodan

I am not sure what states would have only one Senator.

Even Strom Thurmond turned out not to be immortal and Bob Packwood didn’t finish out his term. Al Franken waited months to take his seat after a recount. Succession for Senators isn’t instantaneous like succession for British monarchs. There can be vacancies.

@Shodan

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).

First, this applies only to cloture, not to votes, so the power of the Senate isn’t shifted. There is nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster and there is nothing particularly constitutional about it. The purpose and operation of the Senate is fully preserved when voting on bills.

[quote=“Shodan, post:16, topic:839082”]

[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][/QUOTE]

Well, we use the census for all the other voting-related population questions but I suppose it would be crazy in this context to do anything other than count the number of Facebook members in each state.

Yes, it’s a more democratic approach to one element of Senate operations. Implicit in my question is, whether in this small way, the Senate ought to be more democratic than republican. Direct election of Senators was one move to make the Senate more democratic. This is just another.

@Shodan

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.

The filibuster is just a Senate rule and it can be rewritten with a simple majority of votes in each new Senate.

@Buck_Godot

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.

This is just a filibuster/cloture rule, not a voting rule. The filibuster already works by giving 41% of the Senate more power than the remaining 59%. This just tilts filibuster power differently. You are perhaps correct that a subsequent Senate could change the rule to base it on land area. I will point out that basing on population is pro-democratic and basing it on, let’s say, the number of registered corporations in each state seems anti-democratic. Let the Senators who would use some other metric justify the legitimacy of their decision.

@Little_Nemo

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.

I agree that their votes on legislation should be equal in value. But the filibuster is a procedural rule, not a voting rule. Right now, the only vote that matters is Mitch McConnell and whether he “votes” to bring a bill to the floor. Is that too unconstitutional in your view?

@candide

If a Senator’s vote is determined by the population of her state, how are you going to establish seniority? Cut the cards?

Seniority can be determined the same way it is now and I’m not sure why seniority is relevant to cloture in any event.

[Saint_Cad]

This solution is the easiest. Do what all of the other Rules of Order do and limit the number of times and for how long a member can debate.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Tired_and_Cranky

… Thoughts?

It strikes me as a transparently self-serving proposal.

[iiandyiiii]

I think the filibuster is doomed in the near term, and (mostly) good riddance. Democracy works better when those elected actually have a path forward on what they promise (within the bounds of the Constitution… which doesn’t require the filibuster).

[Shodan]

@Tired_and_Cranky

@Shodan

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.

The filibuster is just a Senate rule and it can be rewritten with a simple majority of votes in each new Senate.

WADR that doesn’t address the question of why the smaller states would agree to this.

The Senate isn’t supposed to be a democratic institution in the same way that the House is. That’s part of the checks and balances. Which is why every state gets two Senators regardless of size. The House acts as a check on the Senate, and the Senate on the House. ISTM that you need a stronger reason than “it sounds like a good idea to me for you to give up some of your power even in a small way”. YMMV, but the mileage of the smaller states probably won’t.

Regards,
Shodan