# Why doesn't the Senate just require a majority to pass a bill? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 22, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924 "2010-01-22T00:09:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924/41 "2010-01-22T21:39:08Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > But if the senate majority leader so chooses he or she can [force the minority party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Procedural_filibuster) to conduct a “true” filibuster even in cases of “procedural filibusters”. So, if I’ve understood correctly, there is no type of filibuster that can’t ultimately be reduced to a “true” filibuster. First of all, that doesn’t prove that there isn’t such a thing as a “procedural filibuster”–just that it could, if the majority leader so wishes, be converted into a “real” filibuster. (my argument is strengthened by the fact that you’re citing to a reference all about the procedural filibuster to argue that there is no such thing). But beyond that, i’m having trouble finding how the majority leader actually demands a “real” filibuster from the wiki cite you’ve offered. I have also looked at the CRS report it references for the relevant point. [http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf\_crs/Filibusters\_and\_Cloture\_in\_the\_Senate.pdf](http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Filibusters_and_Cloture_in_the_Senate.pdf) So maybe you can explain to me how that process works–since I can’t figure out how the majority leader does demand a “real” filibuster–except by not moving for cloture (which doesn’t stop someone else, including a filibusterer, moving for cloture). Can you point out where in the report I should be looking? ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924/42 "2010-01-22T21:48:21Z")
In trying to follow the various points of view in this thread, may I request that participants follow an agreement on terms? These are three that I’d like defined: A real filibuster or a true filibuster An all-hands-on-deck filibuster A procedural filibuster ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924/43 "2010-01-22T21:55:10Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > First of all, that doesn’t prove that there isn’t such a thing as a “procedural filibuster”–just that it could, if the majority leader so wishes, be converted into a “real” filibuster. (my argument is strengthened by the fact that you’re citing to a reference all about the procedural filibuster to argue that there is no such thing). A “procedural filibuster” - ie. a mechanism through which the minority party could prevent the majority party passing a bill without 60 votes, without there being even the technical possibility of the minority party being forced to “actually” filibuster - would not be a type of filibuster at all, it would just be a 60-vote supermajority requirement. My understanding of the Senate (which admittedly is basic) is that there is no such requirement. Any ‘type’ of filibuster always entails the possibility of a “real filibuster” eventually, it just never goes that far in practice. So as I understand it the “procedural filibuster” is just a convenient mechanism for allowing the majority party to waive its right to force the minority party to actually filibuster a bill. And unfortunately no, I don’t know where the cite is within that CBS link, I was citing the Wikipedia link. If that Wikipedia passage is wrong then I’m wrong too. But it agrees with how I previously thought the Senate worked. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924/44 "2010-01-22T21:58:02Z")
> [@CC](#): > > In trying to follow the various points of view in this thread, may I request that participants follow an agreement on terms? These are three that I’d like defined: > > A real filibuster or a true filibuster > > An all-hands-on-deck filibuster > > A procedural filibuster I’m using “real”, “true”, “actual” or “all hands on deck” filibuster to mean the classic image of a filibuster: when minority party senators have to stand up and read the phone book for 23 hours straight and all the majority senators have to sleep in the chamber. A procedural filibuster is one that doesn’t require that scenario. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924/45 "2010-01-22T22:08:34Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > A “procedural filibuster” - ie. a mechanism through which the minority party could prevent the majority party passing a bill without 60 votes, without there being even the technical possibility of the minority party being forced to “actually” filibuster - would not be a type of filibuster at all, it would just be a 60-vote supermajority requirement. But that is the problem–the procedural filibuster is, in effect, a 60 vote supermajority requirement that can be applied more or less without cost. Every time I hear something about the senate in the news, 60 votes are described as needed to pass a bill. That is the state of play today–60 votes are needed to do anything even marginally in dispute. > [@](#): > > My understanding of the Senate (which admittedly is basic) is that there is no such requirement. Any ‘type’ of filibuster always entails the possibility of a “real filibuster” eventually, it just never goes that far in practice. Well, first, I think the procedure in the cloture rule alone is enough to show that there is some kind of “procedural” filibuster–a way to prevent a vote on a bill without continuous debate–that is distinct from the majority simply declining to bring the bill to a vote. But perhaps more practically–we just had a huge fight over a health care bill. If there was a way to make it harder to filibuster it, and hence easier to break the filibuster wouldn’t it have been done? So far as I know (and I’ve been paying attention), nobody has been reading cookbooks into the senate record. > [@](#): > > So as I understand it the “procedural filibuster” is just a convenient mechanism for allowing the majority party to waive its right to force the minority party to actually filibuster a bill. But that makes no sense–I don’t see why any “procedure” is necessary to do something the majority can simply do without any procedure–decline to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. It doesn’t get any easier than that. > [@](#): > > And unfortunately no, I don’t know where the cite is within that CBS link, I was citing the Wikipedia link. If that Wikipedia passage is wrong then I’m wrong too. But it agrees with how I previously thought the Senate worked. And this is the problem with the senate today, IMHO–as I understand it, it works with an effective 60 vote requirement due to procedural filibusters. I think that is not how most people understand it–they think a filibuster is a dramatic, costly thing that rarely happens. ---
**Author:** ![MeDrewNotYou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@MeDrewNotYou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeDrewNotYou)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924/46 "2010-01-22T23:07:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Blue Dogs are more obviously beholden to business interests than most and as such align with Republicans more often on a lot of issues. But many things remain that they can play obstructionist on. This happened in 2005 when Trent Lott suggested the “nuclear option” to stop Democrats from filibustering Bush judicial nominees. > > Most Senators are smart enough to know these things can cut both ways. Great when it works in your favor and lousy when it doesn’t. Also, since what is happening is so undemocratic and the stage is set for each side to just play obstructionist to the hilt because it is easy I think they figure it has gone too far. > > The change may not be soon but I think has to be there soon(ish). Else say goodbye to anything like a functional government. I forgot about the nuclear option and Gang of 14 negotiations, so let me amend my statement a little. Even though abuse of the filibuster _could_ come back to bite Reps in the ass, I see it as doubtful that Dems would go as far as them when in the minority. Perhaps for issues the Dem caucus sees as vital we might see these abuses, but not for run of the mill appointments and bills. In most cases, Dems will eventually cave in a way that I don’t see Reps doing. So there’s less of a risk to Republicans if they just oppose reforms and wait until they’re in the majority again, then just wait for Democrats to cave on most things. They could take the risk (not an unreasonable one IMO) that the Dems _usually_ won’t act like they did. Then they deal with problems and filibusters as in the past, without substantial change to the rules. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924/47 "2010-01-22T23:35:58Z")
> [@](#): > > But perhaps more practically–we just had a huge fight over a health care bill. If there was a way to make it harder to filibuster it, and hence easier to break the filibuster wouldn’t it have been done? So far as I know (and I’ve been paying attention), nobody has been reading cookbooks into the senate record. This is a different issue - in order to “make it harder” to filibuster a bill by reducing the number of votes needed to end cloture to, say, 55, or 51, senators would indeed have to try to change senate rules, which requires (I think) a 67-vote majority. But that’s not what I’m talking about. > [@whorfin](#): > > But that is the problem–the procedural filibuster is, in effect, a 60 vote supermajority requirement that can be applied more or less without cost. Every time I hear something about the senate in the news, 60 votes are described as needed to pass a bill. That is the state of play today–60 votes are needed to do anything even marginally in dispute. Right, _in practice_ it has basically become something like a 60-vote supermajority requirement which can be invoked without cost. But _in theory_ there is no supermajority requirement: there is only the threat of a “real” filibuster, and nothing more. But because a real filibuster is so damaging to both parties nowadays, the majority party never takes it that far. Here’s a political scientist explaining what I’m trying to argue: [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/did\_the\_invention\_of\_the\_airpl.html](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/did_the_invention_of_the_airpl.html) > [@](#): > > **Why don’t the Democrats just break out the cots and let the Republicans filibuster?** > > There’s a reason the Senate stopped doing this. Democrats are not going to want to sit around all day and be in the chamber listening to Republicans talk. They don’t want to give up fundraisers. They don’t want to give up trips. They’d have to give Republicans as much time as they wanted. > > **How would it work if they tried, though?** > > If you’re serious about attrition, you make the opponents do all the talking. Any time there is a gap in the speaking, you begin your voting. Part of the problem is that I don’t think any modern senator really understands how this works. When you see senators pretend to do this in the recent past, it’s play-acting. In 2003, when the Republicans ran a reverse filibuster, if you tuned into C-SPAN 2 – and I did – you saw Republicans talking, which they shouldn’t be doing! If it’s the middle of the night and there’s no Democrat there, that’s when you bring up your amendment! > > **In the book, you argue that another piece of this is that the Senate is under more time pressure now than it used to be, and so losing time costs the majority party more than it used to.** > > There’s two pieces. One is the time of the chamber. They have other things to do. The modern Senate has more staff, deals with more interest groups. There’s more legislation. More appropriations. The modern senator spends 1 percent of his or her time on the Senate floor. They have to take pictures with constituents. They have to fundraise and meet with constituency groups and lobbyists and deal with staff. To actually have a live filibuster would mean they have to give up all the other business. > > And as individuals, they have other things to do. Air travel has opened up. In 2009, if you are the senator from Montana, it’s perfectly reasonable for you to go home on the weekend and campaign for reelection. That wasn’t possible in 1940. You came to Washington to do your work and you stayed until it was done. Now air travel has made it possible for you to fly away for the weekend. That makes your time more valuable. > > \*\*How many Republicans would need to be on the floor during a filibuster? > \*\* > One. > > \*\*And Democrats? > \*\* > If that Republican says I note the absence of quorum, you need 50. > > \*\*So Republicans could pretty much fan out across the media to make their points, and sit on the floor of the Senate showing their charts, and Democrats would be locked in the chamber to fend off quorum checks? > \*\* > The debate is actually one-sided. All the debate is coming from the minority. The bottom line is, there’s no such thing as an independent “procedural filibuster” which can never be forced to a “real filibuster”. And there’s no 60-vote supermajority. There is the “real filibuster”, and that’s it; but because a real filibuster is so damaging to both parties, the majority party tends to abandon or change a bill rather than force the filibuster. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-senate-just-require-a-majority-to-pass-a-bill/525924.md?page=2)