Filibuster Reform

Filibuster is often touted as an idea to increase government efficiency and improve congressional effectiveness, however those who support filibuster seem to be blind to the ramifications of banning filibuster(-ing). Filibuster is an effective tool in protecting the rights of the minority. Political scientist Gregory Koger writes "the majority and minority party haggle over the process for debating major legislation to ensure that members of both parties are able to deliberate fully. Without the minority party's power to filibuster, it is likely that the majority party in the Senate would be no more generous than its counterpart in the House". If the minority party was unable to filibuster, the majority party could simply steamroll its ideas through congress and ignore the will of a large portion of the population. Former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove and former Senate staffer Richard Arenberg, in their recently published apologia, Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senate, note that the filibuster does in fact bring ideologically divergent Senators to the table. In their experience, the ability of an individual or group of Senators to halt legislation spurs on a bill’s sponsor on to find a counterpart in the opposing party to work with him for passage. Indeed, a lawmaker will attempt to find a colleague as far as possible on the opposite end of the political spectrum, since that improves the likelihood that the Senators between them will support the measure. Such overtures, they say, are done at the very beginning of the legislative process, so this effect of the filibuster is not always appreciated. Also, If the filibuster can precipitate a compromise between Senators from the two different parties, then it stands to reason majority Members can more easily use the tactic to shape a piece of legislation. The use of the filibuster can certainly improve the chances of a compromise when the majority party supports a certain piece of legislation, but a handful of Senators are displeased with a provision or two. In such cases, the party’s holdouts—likely moderates—can pledge their votes for cloture in exchange for striking a portion or adding something to the legislation. The filibuster can also prevent terrible, discriminatory or tyrannical legislation from being enacted by a majority. For example, Let’s say the imaginary Ameri-Nazi party wins 65 seats in the senate at some point in time. Without filibuster, the Ameri-Nazi could enact legislation limiting civil liberties and exterminating millions of people, along with override a presidential veto. If you think that could not happen, look at the German government in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Today, A more polarized Senate, with almost no ideological overlap between the parties, has accompanied, and most likely produced, a more fractious process. Changing the rules would treat one symptom -- delay and gridlock -- at the cost of exacerbating the underlying diseases: excessive partisanship and ideological extremism. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com... 3. http://articles.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://conginst.org... 5. http://www.sodahead.com... 6. http://www.time.com... 7. http://www.registercitizen.com... 8. http://www.thenation.com...