Yes, Let's End Filibusters

As much as I hate Trump and his swamped by the swamp, GOP brown nosing, pro-big business, anti-science, anti-public health, anti-individual freedoms, and anti-fact agenda there is one thing I will agree with Trump on what he wants to see happen - getting rid of the Senate filibuster altogether.

While I know that this will produce the immediate consequence of this GOP agenda passed with a lot more ease, I am looking at the long term here.

First off, to put one argument to bed: The filibuster in practice as it is used today wasn't in place when our founders drew up our constitution. It wasn't until 1805 that cloture by simple-majority to cut off debate was eliminated, opening up the possibility of stalling legislation by a minorty, or even a single individual, but it wasn't until the Civil War that even this was taken advantage of to occasionally obstruct legislation. Even then, though, it was rarely used as such. It wasn't until 1917 that the Senate saw a need to include the current 60-vote threshold was put in place for cloture, but, really, we never saw the blatant refusal to reach across the aisle in the obstructionist abuse of the filibuster we saw during Obama's tenure before he was elected. Instead, before Obama, it was a tool to prevent the majority from going overboard in force-feeding an agenda without at least some bipartisanship, deliberation, and actual compromise.

Bottom line, the filibuster was never meant to be used as a tool of obstructionism and shutdown governance, which is what it has turned into. This is why I think it should be done away with. It no longer is serving the purpose it once had.

Yes, as a result, short term, we will suffer the GOP agenda for 2 years, but the silver lining is that afterwards, it will be easier for the backlash that will be voted in (and yes, there will be one) to scrap that agenda and install an agenda that will be based on science, fact, common sense, sane economics, and human dignity and rights.

Someone like Bernie Sanders, who could never get his ideas passed under current Senate rules and practices, could realistically get his agenda passed without a filibuster.

And yes, I'm aware that the pendulum could swing back anytime after that, but one thing about socialist safety-net measures that get DEMOCRATICALLY put into place - once it is, it is much harder for any legislature to get rid of them. Heck, see the current efforts to get rid of Obamacare, not to mention Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Even some members of the GOP have admitted as such recently and is the very reason why they don't want to follow Trump's suggestion of getting rid of the damn thing.

Within the Senate there is a mechanism to end any filibuster.

What is wrong with that?

End a single or all?

Ending a single filibuster on legislation requires a near impossible 60 votes out of 100 in the Senate.

Ending all is what I'm proposing.

Single.

Part of the reason for the filibuster and the required 2/3rds (60%) majority is because a simple majority isn't the "fairest" way to decide the course of legislative action.

Think.... 51 people want something and 48 don't....not much of a majority to decide the important issues of a country, especially when one throws in lobbyists, special interest groups, legislators cutting deals on one piece of legislation to get another piece of legislation (or an unrelated rider on a bill).

Put that into some perspective...320 million people (rounding numbers off)...that's like having 163 million disagree with 153 million people...10 million votes decides the direction of the country....keep in mind that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million...so were aren't talking a "pure" democracy here...still his political party has power...which is our system.

If you can't get 60 senators to override a filibuster, that suggests that you aren't going to get a "real" majority and maybe there is a potential problem with the legislation.

I think ending all filibusters is a very very bad idea... checks and balances don't hurt...ultimately they force negotiation or stop one party from getting too powerful.


admittedly way over simplified.

.... ?

Would there be a way to add National "At Large" seats in House and Senate that would be required to be a non-majority or second popular party?

Like maybe 7 additional seats in the Senate that cannot be (at this time) Dem or GOPer?


And if 50 years down the line if the GOP is nearly dead and it's majority Green, followed by Dem (example), GOPers may still get at least some of the remaining 7 seats.

It would be a step against the gridlock we've been seeing, and apparently will continue to see.

You'd have to change the constitution...on this topic it probably wouldn't go over well.

I hear you, and this is what the filibuster was originally intended for.

However now it's being used as a tool of obstruction that prevents anything from ever getting passed/done that needs to be. Rather than forcing parties to work together, it's entrenching the divide.

So I see my proposal as the lesser of two evils. Sure having a forced bipartisanship is nice, but at least opening up a congress that actually functions again is better than what we have currently, which is nothing.

Nothing, that is, except a bunch of bickering politicians.

Which is why Trump got elected in the first place. But now I think most of America realizes that throwing this Molotov cocktail into the establishment probably wasn't the best way to deal with it.

Yeah, Catch 22