Who favours ending the filibuster?

[Prophet 451]

It's obvious to everyone that the Congressional GOP is abusing the filibuster in a way that was never intended either by the Founders or by those who used the filibuster in gentler times. Hence, just as a kind-of "sense of DU", this poll.

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	End the filibuster entirely
	3 (33%)
	Adjust the count necessary for sustaining or ending a filibuster
	3 (33%)
	Limit the number of times a filibuster can be used per session
	0 (0%)
	Keep the filibuster as is
	1 (11%)
	Something else
	2 (22%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[I owe a]

1. derp again

i wish we had the GOP filibuster

[madokie]

2. Don't allow it to be abused

If someone is going to filibuster make them actually do it rather than just threaten too. Problem solved. Sometimes its good just like sex but when its abused its not good.

[RDANGELO]

3. Here is my proposal.

The filibuster can only be used for a period of one year after a bill is passed by the house or submitted by the senate leader. After one year, if the senate leader submits the bill for a vote, it must be on simple majority vote.

[OmahaBlueDog]

4. End it

I'll concede it's worked for Dems as well as against them. That said, it contributes heavily to gridlock.

[NoPasaran]

5. Go back to Filibuster Classic

If you want to gum up the works, strap on a catheter and read War and Peace. None of this "we could filibuster, so don't make us" crap they use now.

[Prophet 451]

8. Should have included that option

Meant to include it since it's my preferred option too but, call it a brainfart, it slipped my mind.

[denverbill]

11. +1

The filibuster was designed as a delaying tool. It's been turned into a veto.

Delaying a vote to buy time is one thing. Obstructing any vote is very different.

[Xyzse]

16. Agreed!

This is the option I would go for.
Let them spend 20 hours or more talking in one session. I hate the way legislation stops just because of the "Threat of a Filibuster".

A lot of them don't have the stamina for that.

[GoCubsGo]

18. Yep.

If they want it, make them work for it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. I support this

If they want to obstruct something, make them have their face identified with it on a continuing basis. I can see a situation where I'd want a filibuster imposed but in that case, like in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, make it an issue on which you're in the right and are prepared to go all out.

[Johonny]

26. I agree

the big problem with it as it is today is it is too easy for them to use. They never have to give a reason for blocking legislation. Forcing them onto the floor and forcing them to state their reasons why they refuse to allow voting on a bill would do wonders for explaining to the American people why certain legislation sits with no action. If you don't have the guts to talk on the floor of congress as to why you stand opposed then you shouldn't be there in the first place.

[raouldukelives]

25. Yep, that's all that is needed. nt

[ManiacJoe]

27. Exactly the right answer.

Make any filibuster be a real one.

[ellisonz]

28. +1000

[99Forever]

6. Allow a filibuster to be ended by a simple majority.

End of minority rule nonsense.

[Zorra]

12. The Senate can already stop a filibuster at any time with a simple 51 vote majority.

However, Democrats ending the filibuster on a frequent basis would not in the best interests of the 1%. So the myth of the filibuster is perpetuated.

Hem, haw. "Waaaa! We can't do anything because republicans are filibustering!"

It's BS to protect the interests of the 1%.

How To End the Filibuster Forever
The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.

Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.

Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton - 10/06/11 09:10 PM ET

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

[99Forever]

15. You mean that our Democratic apologists have been lying to us?

Really?

I'm freakin' SHOCKED, I tellya.

[Zorra]

19. Hmmm. I'd call it,

selectively not publicly expressing the inconvenient truth.

I bet Harry got totally reamed by the PTB for nuking that filibuster

[99Forever]

21. I can't count how many times...

.. I read the excuse that "we can't do ___________________________ because we don't have 60 ( or more) votes in the Senate and the evil Republicans won't even let us talk about it, we are just plain powerless to do what we PROMISED when we hit you up for campaign contributions. Sorry, those things that matter to you will just have to wait to be addressed till we get 110 Dem Senators, 445 Dem Reps, and hold the White House for 5 terms." (and yes, that was hyperbole)

[Zorra]

29. I hear ya. It's a "mystery". nt

[get the red out]

7. It's becoming the default, end it

The media now says that 60 votes are needed to pass anything in the Senate, as if they never had a Civics class. But then, maybe they didn't. This is just more disgusting abuse of government by the Republicans and reported in the media as normal business.

[karynnj]

9. Frustrating and missused as it is, going to 50 votes plus VP will eliminate minority say on

everything. That's the way it is in the House. The Senate was suppose to be a brake on the House. That said, I think that 60 is too high, but the real problem is that the Republicans are unwilling to work with Democrats in finding the type of compromises that used to get 60 or even more votes. It really is not Democrats forcing party loyalty and putting up highly ideological bills.

In 2009, we briefly - for about 4 months - had a super majority, the Presidency and the House. From the Republican point of view, this led to us passing highly partisan bills that Republicans had no say in. This was not true - as witness the fact that the Senate lost about 3 months with the committee of 6 working to get a bill that could have Republican support.

Eliminating the filibuster - which the Republicans terrified Democrats with in 2005, when we did not have the Presidency, the Senate, or the House would benefit the Republicans more than us. The reason is that we want to build government programs, which is very hard and takes a huge amount of effort to get something that enough people want. They want to repeal Democratic programs - which is conceptually easy - just schedule a vote. (If they have the Presidency, the House and the Senate - and there is no filibuster, which they can enact, how long does the ACA last? After all McConnell was recently honest in saying they really were less interested in replacing it.

Then consider that they will cut taxes - while arguing the deficit needs to be cut and the military needs more money. Result - serious shredding of the already weak safety net. The filibuster is the only real tool the minority has. Hard as it is when we are in power, maybe it SHOULD take at least 60% of the Senate to make major policy change. (Maybe they could find a way to prohib its use on routine - always going to pass votes where it is used just to obstruct.)

[Arkana]

10. Tier the filibuster.

The first time a vote is brought before the Senate, it needs 60 votes for cloture.

If blocked, a second time around it will need only 57.

If blocked again, a third time will need only 54.

And if blocked again a simple majority (51) will do it.

[unblock]

13. no such thing as "the" filibuster

a filibuster is ANY delaying or obstructionist tactic. the denying cloture is just one of many forms.

forcing roll call votes, forcing bills to be read in their entirety, proposing hundreds of pointless amendments, etc. are all forms of filibuster.


so if the cloture rule were revised so as to remove or radically reduce filibuster potential there, republicans would only merely switch to other forms of delay. that would likely be an improvement over the present situation, but it wouldn't be the "end" of "the" filibuster.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Other. End it, but restore it if and when the Republicans become the majority party (nt)

[Prophet 451]

17. That sounds ideal :)

[Llewlladdwr]

20. How would you accomplish that?

I'm pretty sure the Republicans wouldn't impose it on themselves.

I say keep it. It serves both sides.

[hughee99]

23. +1, the filibuster is an important tool to protect the minority party

and the rights of all Americans from the tyranny of the majority... when the Democrats are in charge. Otherwise, it's evil and should be done away with.

When they last changed the filibuster rules to require 60 votes instead of 67 votes, I think they were on to something good, because at the time, there were exactly 60 Dems in the Senate.

[mmonk]

24. It's time.

Let the chips fall where they may. We currently don't have a government because of it.