The U.S. Senate 60-vote cloture rule

[Echolilia]

What say you all?

[Estayland]

LOL I love your 3rd option. I think that's how many feel.

[Echolilia]

A better way of phrasing what I'd meant by the poll question: "Should cloture continue to require a 60-vote super-majority, rather than a 51-vote majority?"

A good summary of the existing rules is at the beginning of www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

[Ananke II]

You guys just need to get a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party, so no one party can command 51 votes on it's own. That way the biggest party will have to cooperate with others, instead of just steamrolling everyone else.

Honestly though, it seems really weird to me that a minority of 40 senators can halt all legislation just by threatening to filibuster. Minority protections are all fine and dandy, but giving the minority powers to halt most legislation entirely, just by saying no seems kinda weird, especially considering all the different crisis the US currently has to deal with...

[Echolilia]

Feb 22, 2010 11:05:58 GMT -5 Ananke II said:

You guys just need to get a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party, so no one party can command 51 votes on it's own. That way the biggest party will have to cooperate with others, instead of just steamrolling everyone else.

Unfortunately, they've done a terrific job of convincing people to choose who to vote for based on who they think is electable. The only hope I see of getting to a more healthy multi-party system is national Instant Runoff Voting, something the two big parties are going to fight tooth and nail against.

[Klington]

The filibuster option is integral to true democracy. It prevents tyranny by majority. Honestly, if you can't get 60 votes to drop a speaker, the issue isn't important enough to be pushed through or you're just not compromising. Either way, you need to take a step back and reevaluate. It is not hard to block a filibuster.

Our Founding Fathers didn't want the federal government passing anything in the first place unless it was utterly, completely needed for the common good. Now a days the politicians commit sacrilege to those great men by using Capitol Hill to push their agendas (especially on to each other and the people). It is entirely disgusting. Local governments are completely neglected today.

[Takaram]

Feb 22, 2010 22:51:50 GMT -5 Klington said:

The filibuster option is integral to true democracy. It prevents tyranny by majority. Honestly, if you can't get 60 votes to drop a speaker, the issue isn't important enough to be pushed through or you're just not compromising. Either way, you need to take a step back and reevaluate. It is not hard to block a filibuster.

Unfortunately, the way politicians are acting right now, attaining the 60-vote majority is necessary, as no one is willing to compromise enough to cross party lines. Right now we have a system of "Alright, my party is voting this way, I'm voting with them" rather than "I think this is best for the American people, even though it might agree with the other party". About the only time people are willing to compromise is if they get enough pork thrown at them, which undermines the bill for others. Essentially, with the filibuster in place, not a thing can get done.

[Klington]

Feb 22, 2010 23:00:08 GMT -5 Takaram said:

Unfortunately, the way politicians are acting right now, attaining the 60-vote majority is necessary, as no one is willing to compromise enough to cross party lines. Right now we have a system of "Alright, my party is voting this way, I'm voting with them" rather than "I think this is best for the American people, even though it might agree with the other party". About the only time people are willing to compromise is if they get enough pork thrown at them, which undermines the bill for others. Essentially, with the filibuster in place, not a thing can get done.

No offense. But that sounds like a personal problem, not a problem with the system of government.

You are looking to attack a problem in the wrong way. If the politicians are corrupt the fix is not to destroy a very good system, it is to fix the politicians.

Let me remind you that the filibuster was originally installed so that corrupt politicians couldn't pass their bull crap. Honestly, I think it's doing a pretty good job. If both sides are gonna try to push their crap on the populace, then I would rather have nothing than have either of their ridiculous political pet projects. The system is checking ambition with ambition, corrupt politicians are having a hard time functioning? Sounds good to me.

[Bad Infinitum]

"Cloture" sounds like a medical condition. Just sayin'.

[Echolilia]

Oh, it is, it is.

[Guy]

Feb 22, 2010 11:05:58 GMT -5 Ananke II said:

You guys just need to get a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party, so no one party can command 51 votes on it's own. That way the biggest party will have to cooperate with others, instead of just steamrolling everyone else.

Honestly though, it seems really weird to me that a minority of 40 senators can halt all legislation just by threatening to filibuster. Minority protections are all fine and dandy, but giving the minority powers to halt most legislation entirely, just by saying no seems kinda weird, especially considering all the different crisis the US currently has to deal with...

Both the Democrats and the Republicans aren't really one party. The party can't control how its members vote (it can offer them candies though).

I think the cloture rule should be reduced to 55 members. As no party is likely to get three-fifths of the members anytime soon again, it makes more sense to change it to eleven twentieths. That way, the party will have to negotiate with both its more right/left wing members (Dems and Republicans respectively), or with the other party's members, but it still wouldn't have to make huge compromises - after all, it was elected.

[New Dracora]

Feb 22, 2010 11:05:58 GMT -5 Ananke II said:

You guys just need to get a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. party, so no one party can command 51 votes on it's own. That way the biggest party will have to cooperate with others, instead of just steamrolling everyone else.

Honestly though, it seems really weird to me that a minority of 40 senators can halt all legislation just by threatening to filibuster. Minority protections are all fine and dandy, but giving the minority powers to halt most legislation entirely, just by saying no seems kinda weird, especially considering all the different crisis the US currently has to deal with...

They tried that in Australia with the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, they turned out to be incompetent so no one voted for them.

[Guy]

By the way, they can't completely stall the legislation. It just takes a few days to pass anything.

[Echolilia]

? No, a vote for cloture (which takes 60 votes for some things and more for others) forces legislation to be wrapped up within a short period of time. Without that, they most certainly can completely stall legislation.

[Bad Infinitum]

Ugh. Politics have no place in government.

[Takaram]

Feb 23, 2010 20:44:38 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Ugh. Politics have no place in government.

This, essentially.

[Guy]

Feb 23, 2010 18:59:10 GMT -5 Echolilia said:

? No, a vote for cloture (which takes 60 votes for some things and more for others) forces legislation to be wrapped up within a short period of time. Without that, they most certainly can completely stall legislation.

Oh no, Ananke said that 40 Senators can completely stall legislation. Less than 41 and they cannot completely stall it, it just takes a few days to pass (depending on how badly they don't like the legislation). The 'worst' case scenario is this:

Cloture presented on the motion to proceed
Following day + one hour of session: Cloture vote on the motion to proceed
30 hours
Motion to proceed
Cloture on the bill presented
Following day, + hour: Cloture vote on the bill
30 hours
Passage

That's without any amendments. By the way, cloture always requires 60 Senators. Changing the rules requires 67, but that's on passage of the resolution, not the cloture vote.

[Echolilia]

Ah, I thought it was on cloture for changing the rules.

[The Candy Lane]

in canada we've had minority govs. for 8ish yrs now. in a way its good cuz the parties work together and compromise, on the other hand it sucks if the small parties block legislation u feel strongly about. also- in canada our senate is by appointment, no votes are cast.
The best solution imho is to get rid of the 'vote by party lines' method and just have the senate as a place for non-partisans only.

[Guy]

There is no such thing as party-line voting in the US. Everyone votes as he pleases, however the party leaders often bribe you.

[Ananke II]

Feb 25, 2010 16:51:19 GMT -5 The Candy Lane said:

The best solution imho is to get rid of the 'vote by party lines' method and just have the senate as a place for non-partisans only.

Depends on your preference I suppose. From what I've seen of the US system (might be wrong) you need to negotiate legislation with every single (well, a lot of members anyway) member of a party before you have a chance at getting something through. No wonder nothing gets done. At least here you've got 7-8 parties whose party top/parliament group negotiate laws, and then everyone votes along party lines.* Of course in Denmark most people probably vote for a politician partly due to his party affiliation, so for a politician to constantly buck his/her party would piss a lot of voters off and probably lose him his seat next election.

*once in a while the parties allow their members to vote how they want. This usually happens in regards to ethical questions.

Edit: We always have minority governments, with the government/supporting party and the opposition parties holding almost the same number of seats, so if the parties had to deal with just a couple of defections every vote it'd totally undermine their bargaining power and reliability in political negotiations. Imo anyway.

[Arcornia]

In my opinion, representive government is too easily corrupted by party affilations and special interest groups. I find it ironic that Republicans want a democracy more then a republic, and democrats want a republic more then a democracy. I can remeber school teachers telling me that since I had the right to vote, I had all the power of congress. Umm, yeah right. The best way to do it is to have a direct democracy. It maygo slower, but thats only if you got some really bad rules to order the group. (read up on parlimentary procedure) But if direct democracy is the best way to go, then is government really meant to be this large? While a government in charge of a large country can get more things done, it also is unwieldy. Government is meant to serve the people it governs. If those people become the servants, then that government shouldn't be there in the first place. Goverment, when it gets bigger, can't listen to everybody's thoughts and ideas. So if you have to have only 30 people in your country, then so be it.
Now if that nation decides to absorb or add some other members from another group, or it just gets bigger from natural increase. Then to preserve the balance of power, these people, say if they are from an opposing nation in a war, shouldn't get their full say until fully integrated. But as the governed grows bigger, you start to realize that maybe such an unwieldy group of people shouldn't be governed under the same flag, and they should either split, or subdivide into smaller governments. But then who goes to the central government? Well now you're a republic and then it's all a big fail. So is government really nessesary? It only causes rifts to be made. If you have peaceful enough people, you should be in anarchy. Gaelic Ireland did so for 1000 years. If there was any problems like rape or murder, then the community as a whole ganged up on the offender. Anarchy is the best way to go, but Minarchy (look it up) is the best if you want a government in place anyways.

[Shadowtech Demons]

I vote yes.