Should the U.S. Senate's filibuster be abolished?

[greenforest32]

Discuss

[Chairman Wow]

Of course it should be kept. It saves us from our selves.

[greenforest32]

Looking back on the wording I could have been less ambiguous. By 'vote to end it' in the 3rd option, I meant voting to override (invoke cloture) a specific filibuster with 51 votes instead of the current 60.

[I left.]

Abolished. There's no rational argument for allowing it.

[President Marokai]

Abolished. There's no rational argument for allowing it.

[Californian Tony]

Abolished. There's no rational argument for allowing it.

[I Am Feeblepizza.]

Option 3.

[Orthodox]

I'm not really getting the idea behind option three. If one can end a filibuster by simple majority, then what is the purpose of a filibuster?

[Torie]

I have been "campaigning" against it since before all you were born! 

[greenforest32]

I'm not really getting the idea behind option three. If one can end a filibuster by simple majority, then what is the purpose of a filibuster?

The filibuster would still exist in theory, but it would be practically useless. I just added that option for kicks.

I agree with the posters above who say it should be abolished.

[Chairman Wow]

Why the hell should it be abolished? The Senate's purpose is to slow down legislation to protect us against mob impulses to raid minority groups. We already ruined the Senate by allowing the popular election of senators, why destroy this last bastion of sanity against the poorly informed believe in mobocricy?

[greenforest32]

Why the hell should it be abolished? The Senate's purpose is to slow down legislation to protect us against mob impulses to raid minority groups. We already ruined the Senate by allowing the popular election of senators, why destroy this last bastion of sanity against the poorly informed believe in mobocricy?

The constitution and the judiciary branch should be protecting against the tyranny of the majority, not a rule that allows an undemocratic (2 senators per state regardless of population) upper chamber to block EVERYTHING unless a 3/5 supermajority agrees to proceed.

[Chairman Wow]

I do not trust the judiciary to understand the interests of a minority, nor do I expect the Presidency to do what is its political interest. I only trust that senators will always fight for their State's interest, and not some mob desire.

And so what if its not democratic? Democracy is horrible form of government. We have the house for that sort of thing.

[I left.]

Why do people always argue like there's nothing outside of America? Shouldn't other liberal democracies serve as an example that majority rule works...and in many cases more effectively?

[white trash heroes]

We already ruined the Senate by allowing the popular election of senators

Certainly, but it does not follow that it is in any way a deterrent against tyranny now. Like, at all. If anything you could argue it's shown itself to be worse the last 10 years.

[Χahar]

The idea that judicial nominees should require a supermajority is a good one, but the filibuster is a backwards way of accomplishing it. In all other cases it should certainly be abolished.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Why do people always argue like there's nothing outside of America? Shouldn't other liberal democracies serve as an example that majority rule works...and in many cases more effectively?

36 state senates don't allow filibusters, and the only other democratic country that has anything similar is Italy.

[Χahar]

Why do people always argue like there's nothing outside of America? Shouldn't other liberal democracies serve as an example that majority rule works...and in many cases more effectively?

36 state senates don't allow filibusters, and the only other democratic country that has anything similar is Italy.

And certainly the Italian political system is a model to us all.

[President Marokai]

Why the hell should it be abolished? The Senate's purpose is to slow down legislation to protect us against mob impulses to raid minority groups. We already ruined the Senate by allowing the popular election of senators, why destroy this last bastion of sanity against the poorly informed believe in mobocricy?

The Senate's inherent purpose isn't to slow down legislation, it's to be a more sober and low key deliberative body. The filibuster is not only anti-democratic, but it's also anti-consensus building. There is absolutely no incentive to work together when all it takes is one senator to invoke arcane legislative procedure to block something unless it gets a supermajority.

More to the point, the filibuster is not in the Constitution. It is a Senate rule, that's all. Not only that, but the filibuster has been reduced in the past to what it is today, from 67 to 60, in 1975.

And regardless of all of that, why in the hell should it matter what the Senate was "intended" for? I have a crazy idea for judging how to implement policy and run government: what works best! The Senate itself is an insane institution that serves absolutely no good purpose. If a majority of the population votes in one party in power, that party should govern, with very little restriction. That is how things work in other civilized countries, and not to knock your socks off or anything, but I have a dirty little secret for you: Many if not most of those countries have governments that work far better than ours does.

Democracy itself is not "mob rule." The fact that we have elections every two years is frankly what makes it mob rule. Few other countries have major general elections with the frequency that we do. For good reason.

What the majority wants, the majority should get. (And tiny irrelevant states like the plains states shouldn't have equal say in any half-way sensible legislature against vastly more populated states.)

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Kept and enhanced to a 2/3 to cloture.

[Senator Ben]

Nope.  However, they should be required to actually filibuster; no procedural crap.

[Frodo]

It should be kept -if (and when) Democrats lose their already nominal majority in the chamber, they are going to be grateful for it.  

[Vote UKIP!]

The filibuster should be retained.

The framers of the Constitution did not trust democracy, for pure democracy always leads to a demagogue rising to power and establishing his own tyranny (a la ancient Athens). That's why only ONE house was elected by the people.

The purpose of the United States Senate was meant to be run by older, wiser men (hence the name) which would review and deliberate legislation passed by the younger, more passionate members of the House of Representatives.

With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate turned from a body of elder statesmen elected by the state legislatures to just another populist body. Senators are, as a British Tory once told me, amount to nothing more than "mini-presidents," with more electoral goals in mind. That's why everything from treaties to judicial appointments have become alarmingly more political than was intended by the Framers.

I believe that in a Republic, not only should the majority rule, but the rights and even will of the minority must not be trampled. I believe the filibuster protects the rights of the minority, is a vital part of the Senate's "deliberative" function.

[The Mikado]

...

Why should what "the Founders wanted" have any importance on what our government should be?

[shua]

Nope.  However, they should be required to actually filibuster; no procedural crap.

^^^^^^^^^