Ezra Klein gives some proposals to eliminate the filibuster. As he admits, they're all bad, and, more to the point, it won't work. Why?
Do I think any of this is likely? Not really. Senators like the filibuster. It keeps them relevant when they're in the minority. It makes their chamber a lot more powerful than in the House, and ensures that the leadership has to listen to their concerns more closely. But if any change is ever to happen, it's going to require a long, long period of public education, and a recognition by grass roots and elites alike that the filibuster is bad for their side, as well as for the country.
Here's the thing. I like the filibuster, and, if I were king of Senate rules, I would tweak, not eliminate, it.
I may be young, but I remember when the sides were flipped. Ensuring that the minority can do something, is, I think, important. The problem with the filibuster as it stands is that you don't actually have to do it, you just have to threaten it.
I want the filibuster to be a delay tactic, not a veto. That is, you can hold the floor as long as you can hold the floor. That would mean that, eventually, things can come to a vote, but a filibuster still would attach an enormous time cost to any bill. It would mean that if a committed majority really hated a bill, they could mire the senate in a procedural battle for a week or two, but not actually outright kill the bill.
It would still have teeth, though. After all, it would mean that the Senate couldn't move on for a while, it would force debate on an issue, and it would give the minority their day in the sun. In the end, though, if a committed majority wants something to pass, it would. The positive flip side is that the filibuster would cost the minority something too--energy. That is, if you--Senator Lieberman, say--really wanted to stop a bill, you'd have to stand on the floor and actually do something about it, not just bloviate on cable talk shows.
|