I didn’t state my wish to remain ignorant of facts, Ravenman. I said that it wasn’t germane. If the Senate had the power to do something odious and only did it once every ten years, I would still be unhappy that they could do it.
Your argument, in a nutshell, seems to be that (1) allowing any bill to be passed by a majority is bad because it gives the majority too much power and (2) allowing a minority of >40% to kill any bill they wish is bad because it gives the minority too much power. I don’t agree with assumption (1), but I set that aside and proposed (2) anyway.
You say that your solution (filibusters) rarely work, but they’re noble and wonderful things anyway? I still don’t get it. Why not say that any group of Senators can hold off a vote for as long as they can stand on their heads? Have an arm-wrestling match between representatives of the two parties, and the winner sets the time of the vote? If the senior minority member can hold his breath for more than 3 minutes, the vote gets put off 'till tomorrow? Heck, go all the way and let the minority put up a Senator for a steel cage deathmatch. Now that shows commitment to kill a bill!
Believe it or not, Ravenman, I do understand your point that you think a sufficiently large minority should have a way to stand up to a majority. I get that. I just don’t get why a filibuster is the method of choice. It seems arbitrary, undignified, and totally contrary to the spirit of getting things done.
No, I never ever said number 1. I have no problem with majority voting, but I think its a unique advantage of the Senate that the minority can slow things down if an issue is important enough to them, so long as there is also a disincentive to attempting to slow everything down. The filibuster does that.
Debate is central to the legislative process. Headstands are not. And the existence and the very threat of a filibuster encourages compromise. That’s why real filibusters are so rare.
Well, it is totally contrary to the spirit of getting things done. That’s why it is useful. And as far as I can tell, the Senate does its job just fine and keeps up with the House in passing legislation. The two bodies passed 508 laws since 2003. What business is not being done in the Senate that is getting done in the House?
I suppose that any method that combines the ability to delay legislation indefinitely while also providing a strong disincentive to do so would work. Filibusters accomplish that goal, and trying to design a new system to do the exact same thing would be pointless, and might also completely fail to work as intended.
Hell, it’s better than keeping a whole House of Lords around to delay legislation that can’t achieve broader support.
