,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I think everyone, even defenders of the filibuster, recognizes the GOP turned it from a tool of consensus into a tool of obstruction.
The reason I still support having it is because the Senate is a malapportioned body. So a simple majority isn't really the will of the people.
The reason I still support having it is because the Senate is a malapportioned body. So a simple majority isn't really the will of the people.
I think the day I will support totally abolishing (or time-limiting) the filibuster is the day we change the Constitution so that each state gets one senator plus one each per four representatives.
Here's another idea.
Keep Senate apportionment as it is, and keep the filibuster, BUT change cloture rules so that instead of requiring 60 senators to end debate, it requires any-sized group of senators representing a majority of U.S. voters.
Keep Senate apportionment as it is, and keep the filibuster, BUT change cloture rules so that instead of requiring 60 senators to end debate, it requires any-sized group of senators representing a majority of U.S. voters.
That is to say: final passage of a bill will still require 50 +1 votes, and any senator can still filibuster. But for cloture, you count up the number of people represented by each senator voting for cloture and it passes only if the total is more than half the U.S. population.
Seems to me that would address the two most immediate problems people have with the Senate: it makes malapportionment matter less, AND it makes it easier to get cloture for major legislation.
