How goes the filibuster?Follow

Because you can vote without discussion. The whole point of the filibuster is to ensure public discussion. Those who are blocking the bill have to explain themselves. Publicly. If they have good reasons, and the public agrees with them, they'll succeed. If they don't, they'll fail.

Just making the vote itself require that much majority doesn't do the same thing.

The problem is, this doesn't actually work in practice.

I started to explain why but really it's quicker to link to someone else who did the explainin' for me.

Here's the money quote:

Edited, Apr 26th 2010 6:00pm by Jophiel

There's a minimum amount of debate required before putting an issue to a vote though (72 hours I believe). A hold is simply a member of the senate asking for more debate on an issue before a vote. The Senate is supposed to be the more deliberative body. The effect on debate reverses depending on the cloture rules.

If you either don't have cloture rules at all (as in not needed because a vote can simply be called by the majority party as in the House), or have the number equal to that needed to pass the vote (as you propose), then the only time the majority would eve allow debate beyond the minimum required by their rules would be to attempt to sway people to their position. Debate in opposition will never be allowed to go on.

If you have cloture requirements greater than that needed to win the vote, then debate ends out being about opposition to a bill. This is not an accident. The House's purpose is to propose new legislation. The Senate's purpose is to prevent any but the best legislation from passing. Their respective rules flow from those purposes. The House is supposed to debate for something. The Senate debates against it. If you eliminate the potential for filibuster, you eliminate that dynamic from our system.



You're looking at it backwards though. A lot of bills will be so partisan that they can get 51 votes, but can't get 60 (or 75, or whatever) for cloture. On the flip side a lot of people will vote for cloture even for a bill they don't agree with because they believe that by arguing the point, they're doing themselves (and their party) more harm than good. It's only on the issue that they feel very strongly about and believe that the public agrees with them, that they'll go forward with more than a token filibuster.




No. It doesn't. The very fact that you require more votes to end debate than you do to win the vote changes the nature of the debate itself. Making those the same number (in either direction) has an impact on that debate process.

Edited, Apr 26th 2010 4:23pm by gbaji

None. This has nothing to do with believing the Republicans are not interested in a debate, and more so with both parties knowing no one watches or cares about debates on the floor. It just isn't an effective way to sway public opinion.

Then why not let them do it? You complain about the GOP filibustering "procedurally", but the Dems are the ones playing games with procedure here. They're the ones who consistently just pull items from the agenda rather than allow a filibuster to occur. Then they have the gall to count that as a filibuster by the GOP and go running off to the media talking about how mean the GOP is for obstructing Senate business.

Let them filibuster. And if that involves one guy sitting in the chamber keeping it going on procedural grounds, while the rest of his party is going out and giving interviews to the media explaining what they're doing and why, I'm not sure what the problem is. Either way, the longer it drags out the more one side or the other will be pressured to end it. Which side, and which method depends completely on the public perception of the issue itself.


The point is that the Dems have consistently shown that they don't want to risk putting the issues at hand before the public. Which, as I stated before, speaks volumes about the degree to which they know that the public does not support their agenda. If they knew that they had public support, they'd let a filibuster go forward and let the GOP sink themselves on the issue. And frankly, on this one, they might be able to spin it their way anyway. The finance reform bill is the first of the major issues on which they can play to their PR strengths. If they refuse to let a filibuster go forward on this one, it makes them look very very bad.

It's not about "swaying" public opinion. It's about going "all in" on your position on an issue. If the public agrees, then the guys filibustering win. If the public disagrees, they lose. The point is that by putting the issue on the floor and showing that nothing else is being done while the filibuster is going on, it forces public opinion to weigh in and pressure one side or the other to give ground.

The GOP is willing to do this. It's not about obstructing or delaying. It's about a belief that the public agrees with them on the issue and the longer the filibuster goes on, the more the Dems will feel that pressure. Every time the Dems sidestep a filibuster, they show the opposite. They show that they don't think the public supports what they're doing.

Er? Because the majority party gets to decide what is discussed on the floor. If a member of the other party puts a hold on the bill, they can put the issue up for floor debate. At which point the other party can announce the use of the filibuster. What the Dems have been doing instead is simply side-tracking the issue. They take it off the agenda, blame the GOP for filibustering it, and move on to something else.



That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about actually putting the issue at hand "on the floor". Meaning that no other business is done until that issue is resolved. The Dems have been loathe to do this so far.



Because I've actually done some research on the issue? The rules for filibusters have changed over time. The Senate introduced rules to allow them to effectively table an issue if someone puts a hold on it, rather than opening the issue up for floor debate (and potential actual filibuster). It's not about the procedure of the filibuster itself, but whether or not the majority party choses to put that issue on the front track of the Senate schedule. If it does that, then nothing else is done while the filibuster goes on, which results in major media coverage, and mounting public pressure to resolve the deadlock. Which way the public pressures the parties to resolve it determines which side "wins".


The Dems have avoided this consistently. And yes. They have completely control over this.

I find that hard to believe but rather than chase you around, I'll say again -- offer up some links. You've researched it so it should be really quick work for you.

I will however admit that it took me a moment to get what you were trying to say. Mostly because it's so silly that I wouldn't have guessed that's where you were going.

What's amusing to me though is that you've never argued this point before (and we discussed filibusters fairly recently) which means that, at some point in the last month or so, you heard someone tell you this and actually agreed that it made sense. Good times.

You're welcome to look up the old thread if you want to prove your point.

You've also failed thus far to show any indication that the GOP really wants to throw down and spend twenty hours on the Senate floor but the mean ole Democrats won't let them.

You've imagined that it's true though and I suppose that's what's really important.

Honestly, in this instance, it's equal part Reid trying to grow a pair & the GOP playing their "party of NO!" card. Looks like the Dems lost bipartisan support of the climate bill because of this, so now that's up in the air too.

I can't fault Reid entirely for trying to find his balls, but in this instance it's too little too late. And anyhow, all Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi has the bigger pair as is.

Um, Varus for pres.?.

Well, to be fair I do think financial reform of some sort will pass since it's an election year & financial reform does have widespread public support. It just irks me that instead of doing what could have been be done (a bipartisan climate bill), that Reid's OK with scuttling it in favor of dealing with a financial reform filibuster.

But I honestly don't think the GOP is stupid enough to try & oppose it for no other reason than they don't want the Dems to pass anything.

Or are they?