Call me irresponsible, call me crazy, call me a fool, but: Why did the recent budget Bill need 60 Senate votes to avoid a shutdown? I’m no Political Science major, but wouldn’t 51 votes (a mathematical majority) or 67 votes (the typical 2/3 vote) be the expectation? Googling around, I keep finding that a vote of 60 Senators is only needed to stop a filibuster. Maybe I fail to understand what unfolded this past Friday to cause the Government shutdown. Was the real issue with the 60 needed votes to stop a filibuster, or were 60 Senate votes really needed to pass the budget Bill?
60 votes were needed to overcome a filibuster
ETA: pretty much every controversial piece of legislation needs to overcome this hurdle before it can be brought up for a final vote, which then requires 51 votes to pass.
To go a layer deeper, almost all bills before the Senate are entitled to unlimited debate. To end debate, 3/5ths of Senators must vote to invoke cloture. After cloture is invoked, there is a time limit of another 30 hours of debate. Following that, there is an guaranteed vote on the issue, which is decided by a majority.
It’s just a rule of the Senate. It was first used in 1919. In the 1975, the number needed was dropped from 2/3 to 3/5.
There were actually two issues at play. One, 60 votes were needed to bring the bill to a vote. Two, the Republicans weren’t entirely sure that they had the 50 votes needed to pass the bill after that.
As for why the 60 limit applies to get to a vote, it’s intended to be a check on the tyranny of the majority.
My understanding (and if I’m wrong, someone will hopefully clarify) is that Congress can override the 60 requirement by using what is called the “nuclear option” (though I hate to use that word with this PotUS). But if Congress did so, it would leave them open for resistance in other areas.
“The nuclear option” essentially consists of abolishing the filibuster. Neither party really wants to do it because they’re afraid of being the minority someday. It’s been partially invoked to allow presidential appointees to be confirmed by a simple majority.
I don’t think it’s intended to be anything. It just developed as an unintended consequence of the Senate debate rules,but it’s not that the people who created the debate and cloture rules in the first place did so deliberately to create the filibuster.
AIUI, there’s some confusion about cloture vs filibuster.
A filibuster is when you have the floor and you keep talking and talking and talking and won’t let anyone else talk. This can be a delaying tactic while your colleagues try to persuade other senators to change their votes. It can also run out the clock so that the vote happens after midnight, or perhaps enough senators give up and leave so they don’t have a quorum anymore and the vote is postponed until everyone comes back the next day. Having 60 votes does NOT give them the magical power to end a filibuster. Once a filibuster starts, even 99 votes cannot stop it. The only way to stop it is if the senator who is filibustering stops talking or sits down.
The point of the cloture motion is that it prevents a filibuster in advance. It takes 60 votes to end the debate and move on to the vote. If someone says “Gee, I think I might filibuster tomorrow”, they can prevent it with a 60-vote cloture motion BEFORE the filibuster happens.
I think I got that right. Can anyone tell me if part of my description is inaccurate?
As others have pointed out, 60 is an arbitrary number that the Senate put into its own rule book (which is renewed every two years) and they could decide to change it to 55 or 67 or 51 if they wanted to. But it’s been at 60 for a really long time and that seems to work pretty well. Lowering it to 51 is dramatically called “the nuclear option”. The whole point of having two houses of congress is that the senate is supposed to be more deliberative, more calm, slower to action, less partisan, and less concerned about reelection (compared to the house which is quicker to act and has a faster turnover rate). The irony is that, if you make a motion to amend the rules and make it 51, then you still need 60 votes for cloture on THAT motion, or else someone could filibuster it. But again, a filibuster doesn’t actually prevent a vote, it just delays the vote for a few more hours.
Nine times out of ten, the filibuster doesn’t actually take place. They discuss the POSSIBILITY of a filibuster and they count how many votes they think they have to prevent one. Then they either cut some kind of deal or the bill is withdrawn and they’ll bring it back another time.
Not quite right. Cite (start page 8, section entitled Invoking Cloture)
A cloture motion which has been signed by 16 Senators may be submitted at any time*, including while a Senator holds the floor and is speaking to filibuster a debatable motion. That cloture motion sits until one hour into the session on the second day after it was submitted. At that point the motion ripens.
When a cloture motion ripens the presiding officer interrupts the proceedings, including any speech given in filibuster, and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote.
The presiding officer is required to proceed to a quorum call (unless waived by unanimous consent) and the, without debate, proceed to a vote on the cloture motion.
If the vote for cloture is approved then proceedings on the matter continue for up to 30 additional hours at which point a vote is taken. If the vote for cloture fails then the filibuster may continue indefinitely.
So a Senator cannot simply hold the floor indefinitely if a properly submitted cloture motion is approved. And nothing about giving a speech to filibuster prevents a cloture motion from being filed, ripening, and put to a vote.
- any time after proceedings on a debatable motion have commenced.
Isn’t this closer to 99 times out of 100 in the U.S. Senate? The filibusters we see nowadays are when a Senator lacks the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster, but wants to put on a show for C-SPAN.
You crazy, irresponsible fool!
What?
Didn’t you read my cite? It was deliberately created to provide a way to end fillibusters.
No, now you are just retconning. The bicameral legislature was a compromise between the heavily populated states who argued for proportional representation (thus, the House) and the smaller states who preferred the one-vote-per-state scheme in the Articles of Confederation. The smaller states feared becoming marginalized by the bigness of the big states, so the Senate was established as an offset to that. This nonsense about (originally) intended to be more deliberative does not really hold up.
Sure, what the hell did contemporaries know?
The article goes on to list all the ways the Senate was designed to be different from the House “To foster values such as deliberation, reflection, continuity, and stability.”
Is that what a saucer is for? I thought it was just a dish to hold your tea cup – useful to keep the tea from splashing on the carpet if you decide to carry it to another room.
No. Changing the rules of the Senate takes a simple majority. If that were not true, how did the rules get changed to allow judicial appointments to be approved by a simple majority in the first place? If there were not 60 votes to approve the appointment, then there certainly weren’t 60 to change the rule to 51.
Yup. Teacups with handles were a new thing in the 18th century, and very much a luxury good because only the finest porcelain was strong enough to make a handle. The Founding Fathers and the rest of the American aristocracy were comparatively poor and decades behind the fashions of the European nobility, so I don’t think teacups with handles were very common in the US until the 19th century. Thus, Washington and Jefferson drank tea by pouring it straight from the teapot into a saucer.
No, they didn’t and would consider that a frightful breech of etiquette.Did people actually drink coffee off the saucer? talks more about tea than coffee. It was a common practice in many cultures. Basically, pouring tea into the saucer from cup allowed the tea to cool faster and make it drinkable sooner. Blowing on tea to cool it down would have been frowned on just as blowing on soup to cool it down would have been. This apparently was an acceptable compromise.
Porcelain tea sets were common among the American elites. Washington was possibly the richest man in America. When he traveled in elite circles tea sets were absolutely expected. This Google image page shows many 18th century American sets (and some non-American). Note that the saucers were much deeper than modern flat ones and would have been easy to drink out of.