Should we modify the 60 votes to cut off debate to 60% representation?

[TheCoxwain]

I know we would like to pass our agenda - but the filibuster is an important tool for the minority that needs to be protected -- except that the current republican minority is a really tiny minority ..

Alaska has 2 senators for 686,293 people and so does California ... for 37 MILLION ... infact all the Republican senators represent less than 12% of the US population ...

If you get my drift -- A Republican Filibuster is not the same as a Democratic Filibuster ... I am not an expert in constitutional law .. but the status quo seems unfair to the Democratic states ... so why not have some balance atleast as far as filibusters are concerned??

So Should we we modify the 60 votes to cut off debate to 60% representation?

This will serve us well even when we are in the minority ...

[blue_onyx]

1. No, keep it the same

I think the Democrats need to grow a backbone and force the GOP to actually filibuster. I bet the GOP won't...problem solved.

[TheCoxwain]

6. any specific reason you think pukes wont follow up on their filibuster threat?

[blue_onyx]

7. I don't think they have it in them

It's one thing to say no to a bill, it's another to block it from a vote. Have the Republicans even threatened to filibuster? It seems that everyone knows the GOP could filibuster so they just assume the Senate needs 60 votes. It's the Democrats who have decided we need 60 votes because they're worried the Republican might filibuster. We'll never know until Reid forces them to filibuster. I feel that if the Democrats push legislation, the GOP would back down (particularly Snowe, Collins, and Specter) and vote for cloture (followed by a no vote on the actual legislation).

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Do you think that you could convince 2/3 of Senators to agree to this?

Because that's how many votes you need change the rules of the Senate.

[TheCoxwain]

3. No you dont ... How could the Republicans have used the 'Nulcear' option they were threatening to?

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. It would only have applied to nominations, not legislation, as Senate rules do not

specifically state that cloture applies to nominations.

[zipplewrath]

4. You're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

The problem you are addressing, is in its most minor and annoying feature. As with the EC, the original concept of state by state representation was based upon the largest state being Virginia, and the smallest being Rhode Island. Now, the largest is California, but we still have Rhode Island. (Before the nitpickers start, no I'm not sure it was Rhode Island). I understand giving some protection for a minority, but as you point out, frequently what you have is that the disparity has resulted in as little as 12% of the nation "controlling" the agenda. Small states should truly have to "band together" in order to use minority control. And really, with the distributed and mobile nature of the population today, the whole "big state/small state" theme is kinda outta date anyway. An adjustment of the senate is more than warranted, along with some adjustment of the gerrymandering that happens in all states, with both parties. Representation has to be more "democratic", even while still protecting the minority. Truth is, the best way to protect the minority is to assure that they aren't gerrymandered out of existence.

[LSdemocrat]

5. Eliminate the cloture votes, but force em to do old-school filibusters

Force them to take the time so that everyone knows that the filibuster is the only thing keeping the legislation going forward.

[onenote]

10. it won't work that way

Old time filibusters (a) are more of a burden on the majority than on those filibuster; (b) historically succeeded; and (c) rarely resulted in any signficant negative fallout for the side filibustering.

There is a reason why organizations such as moveon.org and common cause were opposed to changing the cloture rules when the repubs were threatening the nuclear option. And those reasons don't change simply because the party in control of Congress changes.

[galileoreloaded]

9. How about increase the size of the Congress proprtionately to the size

of our population?? When the 535 number was derived, the population was considerably less. Would be a lot more Senators and Representatives, but it would more fairly enable the will of the people to be carried out.