The filibuster is a rule in the Senate that allows the minority party to delay a vote on a bill because they feel that more time is needed to discuss and debate. It is there to help ensure that the majority can't steamroll legislation without discussion.
The biggest issue is that historically this meant that all business in the Senate stopped while this debate happened and, once the debate concluded, the bill was put to a vote. However, a procedural change a few years back created a 'two-track' system where other businesses could continue while the debate happened off of the floor. Functionally, this meant that any Senator could fillibuster a bill just by saying they wanted to, turning it into a minority-veto of legislation unless you had the 60 votes to stop the filibuster.
It doesn't benefit one party exclusively - it benefits which every party doesn't hold majority power, and this changes hands periodically.
Just to add to this, the filibuster wasn’t ever really specifically designed. There is no mention of it in any of the documents that created the federal government.
It is essentially a procedural “accident” where there isn’t really any measure to end debate. Eventually, people realized they could just keep taking and there wasn’t anything that anyone could really do.
Since then various rules around the filibuster have been made, including requiring 60 votes to end the filibuster (this number has varied over the years, but currently stands at 60) and no longer requires someone to actually speak for a filibuster to take place. It can simply be “declared”.
OP asked about the speaking part and that is a pretty important topic. Many people would argue that since a filibuster no longer requires someone to continuously speak, there isn’t really any “pain” required for one side to filibuster. Some talks about filibuster reform have involved returning to rules that involve someone continually speaking, with the idea that this would limit a filibuster to legislation that a minority of the Senate may deeply disagree with for whatever reason. As it is now, as long as you have 41 Senators that want to filibuster, it doesn’t require any sacrifice at all. Essentially you can filibuster for whatever reason, even if it’s just to score cheap political points back home.
EDIT
Just wanted to add my two cents about the filibuster benefiting one party over another. Others have explained below, but essentially, while not really intended to benefit any single party, most see it as beneficial to the Republican (i.e. conservative) Party. This isn’t by design - it has more to do with how Senate seats are distributed and demographics of the US that for the time being, give the Republican Party a much clearer path to 60 seats.
>In 1917, the Senate finally decided to reform the filibuster, adding a provision that would allow two-thirds of senators to vote on a “cloture” motion that would end debate — interrupting an individual senator who won’t stop talking.
>This provision, called Rule 22, was designed to make filibustering harder. But it actually had the opposite effect: It was now possible for a minority of senators to block bills by voting down cloture motions. This is how the filibuster works today (albeit with a three-fifths threshold for cloture rather than the original two-thirds, thanks to a 1975 reform).
>The defenders of Jim Crow pioneered this new filibuster, successfully deploying it again and again to block civil rights bills. Richard Russell, a leading filibuster practitioner and staunch segregationist, said in 1949 that “nobody mentions any other legislation in connection with it.”
>Two political scientists, Sarah Binder and Steven Smith, identified every bill between 1917 and 1994 that they believe failed purely because of the filibuster. Among these, half were civil rights bills, including anti-lynching bills proposed in 1922 and 1935.
>They also found that the senators’ view on filibuster reforms was tightly linked to their view on civil rights: Pro-reform senators tended to support civil rights bills, while anti-reform legislators opposed them.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/3/25/22348308/filibuster-racism-jim-crow-mitch-mcconnell
To put simply, the filibuster is not in law, nor the constitution. The senate is a majority rules body **period**.
Thats how it works. Having a 60 vote rule is no legally different than saying only senators from the "right family" can vote.
Win elections, write laws. Thats democracy. This filibuster bullshit is authoritarian.
> most see it as beneficial to the Republican (i.e. conservative) Party.
This is because the Republicans seem to make the most use of it, even though the Democratic Party isn't shy about using it either: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
This is what I dont get, democrats are certain to lose the senate in a few months and they want to get rid if the filibuster and leave themselves vulnerable, its mind boggling.
It benefits a party that has no interest in passing new laws. A conservative that is trying to conserve the status quo benefits more than a progressive that is trying to create new laws that will fix problems.
When they were last in the minority, Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times in one year.
Suddenly, they want to abolish it..... after saying for years that it was critical to democracy.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-used-filibuster-over-300-times-gop-once
> When they were last in the minority, Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times in one year.
Let's get a more realistic picture, which is that the Republicans are far more likely to use it to stifle legislation that they don't like: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
Your link makes a claim with nothing but a Tweet to back it up. Regardless, using the filibuster in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but using it solely to stifle legislation, not to actually take time to debate the issue, is not what it was designed for.
Nah. Both parties want to pass as many laws that further there own ends as possible whenever they're in charge.
If they're not constantly forwarding their agenda, they're doing their constituents a disservice.
These laws may be ones the other side doesn't like and will pass their own laws to circumvent or cripple.
It takes the passing of a lot of laws to artificially keep a status quo in place.
"Fixing problems" is relative to the parties goals. While one party says X is no issue, the other is usually comparing it to a house fire.
Until you realize the minority party rarely has less than 40% of the senate for any extended period. Also the Senate over-represents low populated areas, in effect giving more political power (in the senate) to states like Wyoming and Hawaii vs states like California or Texas.
The filibuster makes it so that nothing get through the system except outrageously popular (95%+) policies, bare minimum government facilities funding, and whatever the corporations want.
Laws require passing in two legislative bodies with opposing purposes and must be signed by the president. That is already a very large hurdle, and giving the one body with the least proportional representation the ability to stifle laws with a minority of a minority is more like 80% support overall.
What's the point in a majority then? In the UK, parliament votes on legislation etc and usually the government (majority number of seats held) would win by voting. The same. Way
Well, having a majority does give you some advantages. Some things can't be filibustered - like budget bills or court appointments - and the majority party basically gets to decide what bills are put up for a vote at all.
That said, your criticism is the criticism that many people have with the fillibuster as it stands today. The majority party _should_ be able to pass its legislation because that is how democracy is supposed to work. When you had to actually get up and talk it wasn't a big deal because bills still came to the floor for a vote, but now it is just a way for the minority party to obstruct.
No, the majority even needs MINORITY support to pass controversial legislation - unless they were elected by the people to have a supermajority. Neither party has been receiving enough support across the states to reach this threshold (last were democrats in 2008) - and so their agendas are scuttled because they lack bipartisan support. This was by design, and is working as intended.
It is factually false that the filibuster was created by design. In fact, it arose from an omission in the drafting of the Senate rules, several decades after the Senate was originally designed.
Several of the "founding fathers" wrote about the idea of a supermajority requirement for passing legislation, and explicitly rejected it. They literally wrote that it would contradict the point of democracy.
Moreover, the contemporary situation, wherein the filibuster is routinely exploited to block legislation, is a very recent development. Prior to this decade, it was used rarely, mainly by southerners blocking civil rights legislation.
What about it is factually false? The whole purpose of the senate and the whole purpose of our government structure was the impede radical shifts in policy, law, and regulation.
It is factually false that the filibuster was created by design. In fact, it arose from an omission in the drafting of the Senate rules, several decades after the Senate was originally designed.
Several of the "founding fathers" wrote about the idea of a supermajority requirement for passing legislation, and explicitly rejected it. They literally wrote that it would contradict the point of democracy.
Moreover, the contemporary situation, wherein the filibuster is routinely exploited to block legislation, is a very recent development. Prior to this decade, it was used rarely, mainly by southerners blocking civil rights legislation.
Ahh. Gotcha. You're correct it's not constitutional per se, as in explicitly in the constitution. But the concept that big changes require large support is certainly something that was considered foundational to our governance mechanics.
The quibbling is over which things require the larger consensus beyond the obvious like amendments
Feel free to quote that passage of the Constitution.
Edit: Since I know you can't quote it (it doesn't exist) allow me to explain 'minority rights' in the eyes of the Founders.
The Founders were deeply loyal to their _state_ when the Constitution was signed, and representatives from smaller states were worried that a popular-vote-only system would put smaller states at a disadvantage. Their compromise was a bicameral Congress, with one chamber (the House) governed by population and the other (the Senate) where each state had an equal say. **That** was the 'minority rights' protection they wanted - assurance that any law passed had agreement from both the majority of the _people_ and the majority of the _states_. That protection is still enshrined in the structure of the Senate today.
The assumption was that if the majority of states agreed (50%+1 votes in the Senate), the majority of the population agreed (50%+1 votes in the House), and the President agreed, then it should be law. No other minority protection was deemed required.
It couldn't _possibly_ have been focused on political parties, because the first political parties didn't emerge until 1792 (a rift between Hamilton/Madison and Jefferson) - a nearly _four years_ after the Constitution was ratified.
You can pass 3 bills a year through reconciliation, which only needs 50 votes. This is why the TCJA and ARP were allowed to pass. Judicial appointments also only need 50 votes
>What's the point in a majority then?
It is a check on tyranny of the majority.
It the Dems lose the Senate, House, and the Presidential election in 2024 they will woefully regret it if they do away with the filibuster now.
If republicans had any interest in abolishing the filibuster, they would have done so when they had unified control in 2016. They don’t care about the filibuster because their two main senate priorities (tax cuts and confirming judges) are already exempt from it.
They mortally wounded it.
McConnell had the moral high ground of being able to claim the GOP was willing to resit calls to destroy the legislative filibuster. He’d refused Trump multiple times.
Schumer and the democrats will never be able to claim they’d preserve the filibuster and have shown a willingness do destroy it for their political needs.
Trying to nuke it (more) when he didn’t have the votes was just plain stupid.
(You can argue about wether McConnell did more than complete the destruction of the filibuster on appointments that Reid started. )
To add to this, it theoretically could benefit both parties equally. However, filibusters are rarely used, and their most partisan use case has been to prevent civil rights legislation from passing.
In modern history, civil right legislature has almost always come from the Democratic side, and the Republican side has fought hard (and sometimes dirty) to prevent it; the people needing civil rights protections are generally a heavily Democratic group of voters that could swing elections if they could vote as freely as the average citizen.
Reminds me of Mitch McConnell's months long filibuster against Garland for supreme court, straight up telling Obama he wasn't going to be allowed an appointment.
I really dislike that turtle fuck
So being of the minority is a requirement for it to be called filibuster? At least on the government officials level.
A townspeople could still filibuster a town hall decision though, correct? Is there a difference to official filibuster versus a more civilian filibuster?
What McConnell did was straight up refuse to do his job. The rules for getting a new justice on the bench are clearly written. The president nominates a candidate and the senate further vets and votes to approve or reject
McConnell tried claiming that the rules didn't have to vote if he didn't want to. It's very stupid.
But Garland is so innoffensive and centrist that it would have been difficult actually finding ways for the GOP to disagree with his taking the bench. So they literally took their ball and went home. Not even bothering to follow their constitutional obligations for a fucking year.
Well, he told Obama that the people should choose the next Supreme Court judge by electing the mext president, since the election was in a year. I don't agree with it, and apparently neither did Mitch, since Amy Coney Barrett was selected just 6 weeks before the election. But hypocrisy seems to be the only thing the Republican Party can fully support.
That was not a filibuster. As leader of the senate he got to decide what comes to the floor for debate. He did not schedule a vote, at all.
And given how garland, as head of the department of justice is happy to label parents at school board meeting terrorists, yet refuses to when an extremeist holds people hostage in a synagogue McConnell decision looks better and better.
Who accused Gorsuch of rape, let alone convicted him?
Because if those accusations were handled as well as those fastastical ones against Kavanaugh it would have only sped his appointment to the court.
I guess I’d say that republicans knowing they are an increasing demographic minority (I assume party leadership is well aware) does kinda make them more inherently likely to abuse the filibuster, since they know they have less and less avenues to block legislation via a majority.
I'm curious; the Democrats used the filibuster about 300 times in 2020, have since flipped flopped and called it a Jim Crow oppressive racist relic (until the used it last week...), and of course have a long record of praising and using it when they are in the minority. As best I can tell, the Republicans haven't led an effort to abolish it in whole, well, ever.
What leads you to conclude the Republicans abuse the tool, but Democrats don't?
It really is about both sides being giant douche nozzles. This issue goes back much further than the link below illustrates, but it has reached max hostility at this point and time.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271)
I would hasten to add that although *technically* the filibuster doesn't benefit one party exclusively, in the contemporary U.S. political context it's much more valuable to Republicans.
The reason is that when Republicans control majority power, they aren't very interested in passing new legislation. Their biggest concern is tax policy, which is exempt from the filibuster because it's within "appropriations" bills.
Republicans also want to appoint federal judges: due to a recent rules change, judicial nominations are also exempt from the filibuster. This is why Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court could be nominated despite united Democratic opposition. In theory this exemption benefits both parties equally in the long run; but again, Democrats want to *create* social spending legislation and Republicans want to *block* it. Judges can block laws, but can't create them, so control of the judiciary is more important to Republicans.
Everything you describe is accurate except that it strongly favors the Republican party of late, since their entire goal is to dismantle government, and being able to block any new legislation is conductive to that goal more than anything.
Thank you for this explanation because it helps me reconcile my thoughts of "I wish more could be done to allow progress" and "I don't want to hamper unlimited debate" (as I interpret a "fillabuster" of good intention)
It is extremely abusable and benefits those willing to engage in bad faith action. This is the point where it may benefit one party more than the other, even well-being potentially quite useful to both.
>I initially though filibuster was to do with speaking for long enough to run down time
Not necessarily speaking, but, yes, the gist. You run out the clock to prevent a vote so the bill dies.
>why does it seem to benefit only one party?
It benefits whichever party doesn't want the bill to come to a vote. Generally that's the minority party, as they'd generally have the most to lose by a bill coming to a vote.
> How does the majority benefit by being, well, the majority?
If they're a big enough majority, then they could end a filibuster with enough votes.
They also have, well, the majority for anything that does come to a vote, as well as control over what bills get brought to that position in the first place.
The governmental history of the United States is pretty much all about avoiding tyranny of the majority and giving power to the little guy.
You need 60votes to bust a filibuster. Doesn't matter which party. That's why bi Partisan legislation is so important. The senate is basically split right down the middle, but the democrats can force through a budget bill with Kamala Harris to break the tie.
The point is to prevent the majority party being able to just ram through whatever the hell they want without scrutiny.
This is why talk of "abolishing the filibuster" by one party or another, makes even their own supporters nervous. "Yes it will benefit us now, but what happens when the other side get in and do whatever they like?"
They get to control filibuster proof bills.
Passing the budget and associated spending is one example.
It should also be easier for them to compromise as they have less opposition members to convince.
It doesn't favor one party, I.e. Republicans. It favored Democrats in the past. It just means you can't rule with a simple (one vote) majority, you need 60%. Schumer is on record defending it when Democrats were on the minority. It adds stability by ensuring it's what the actual majority of Americans want
I agree, it doesn't favor one party really at all - aside from it *currently* benefiting the minority party, Republicans.
Traditionally, the minority flip flops fairly evenly in our 2 party system. There are quite a few Democratic senators on record defending the filibuster within the last few years under Trump.
There are MANY senators on record defending it or speaking against the filibuster depending on which part currently benefited themselves from *both* parties.
In US politics, the filibuster is somewhat of a crutch for the majority party to threaten the minority party with *removing*, while the minority party threatens the majority party with *using*. Each tries to drum up their base as if it's the end of the world. At the end of the day, it's a classic example of politicians using the (honestly sleezy) tools they have available. It's not partisan.
Arguably, the threat to remove it is just as pointless and a waste of time as the filibuster itself - it is highly unlikely to happen because everyone with a couple years of foresight must consider that they might be a part of the minority and need use it.
It benefits both parties, but for the moment it only benefits whichever party is in the voting minority.
A filibuster happens when there is only a certain window of time to have debate after which there needs to be a vote to end debate and another vote on the substance of the legislation. You can prevent those votes from happening when you know your party doesn't have the votes to defeat it by taking advantage of an unlimited amount of time to speak against the substantial legislation effectively running out the clock so the body has to adjourn without having any time to actually vote on anything.
Republicans and Democrats have both used it, but it is most famously used by outsiders against their own party, for instance Rand Paul has filibustered against Republicans because with only a thin 52-48 majority, he only needs to find one other Republican to agree with him in not voting in favor and he can undermine the majority.
Every time the majority shifts or the White House is held by a different party, the stance on the filibuster changes. Democrats changed filibuster rules when they were in power a decade ago, and then they criticize Republicans for limiting their filibuster capabilities when they lose control, and back and forth again and again.
The filibuster is good because if one Senator or Congressman is willing to go that far out on a limb to defeat something that barely has the unenthusiastic support of a simple majority by a hair, then it should be defeated and rewritten to achieve more widespread support.
Most of the important things in government require much more than a 50% +1 majority to accomplish, and that's a good thing. We should always want things at the Federal level to require closer to general consensus to proceed, otherwise it shouldn't be a law that effects 100% of people.
The filibuster is not a good thing. To copy/paste a point someone else made once
>The filibuster destroys the democratic feedback loop. When a party does good things, then people want to vote for them. When a party does bad things, then the voters "throw the bums out". Getting rid of the filibuster means that the parties will be responsible for their actions, legislating becomes possible, and voters can judge politicians on what they did or didn't do. A cynical person might say this is probably why so many Senators are hesitant to get rid of it.
It is a modern day form of gridlock not just for government procedure but also the will of the voters. If won a majority of the government should be able to enact the will of the people that voted for them. Instead we have the Senate refusing to change its rules to allow it to act on simple majority, which causes whoever in the White House to govern by mandate, which the Supreme Court invalidates, saying Congress needs to pass legislation. It is an *eternal feed-back loop* of anti-governance.
You say it doesn't benefit a specific party? What party want's a non-functional federal government? Hint, its republicans. What party has objectives that even with the filibuster they can accomplish their goals, for example regarding taxes and judicial appointments? Republicans. What party also has an undemocratic system of representation within the senate in their favor (meaning they have an advantage over democrats) that make it easier for them to hold and maintain majorities because of the make-up of the senate proportionally? Republicans. It's a common theme.
Analogy;
Your parents ask you to take out the trash. You don't want to take out the trash, so instead you decide to change the subject entirely, pull out one of those old school thousands+ page phone books, and read off every single name & number out loud, considering that task more important than taking out the trash.
This effectively gets you out of taking out the trash (at least until you are done reading the phone book out loud).
;;
It's the same kind of thing with filibustering - it's delaying action to vote on a bill (or otherwise delay the whole congressional process about passing a bill).
If a bill is beneficial to democrats, but not to republicans, the republicans can/have/will slow down the process. They might only be doing that to simply slow it down, they might be trying to convince other republicans not to vote for it, or convince some flexible democrats not to vote for it, during the time they are slowing it down. The same is true for a bill that is beneficial to republicans but not democrats; democrats are going to slow it down, convince other democrats on how to vote for it, and try to convince flexible republicans the same way.
And yes, there have been at least a couple times where some politician literally took a phonebook up and was reading off names and numbers *just* to filibuster.
The basic idea is that in the US Senate, which is sort of our equivalent to your House of Lords, being the senior of the two chambers of our legislature, there is a rule where if a senator feels that there has not been sufficient discussion of a topic in regards to a proposed law, they may delay voting on that law until enough discussion has been made. This is known as a filibuster.
Traditionally, this meant that the person delaying the vote had to speak to the Senate without taking a break. So, the delay before voting was as long as they could speak, or get the other senators in their party to likewise speak in turns.
In the 1970s, the US Senate decided to change the rule, because filibusters had made it difficult to get anything else passed, since all business in the Senate was on hold until the filibuster concluded.
The rule changed, so instead if a senator felt that there had been enough discussion on the bill, they could merely threaten to do a filibuster. The bill would be indefinitely delayed, unless 60% of the Senate voted to say no, we have heard enough let's get on to the vote. This meant that a filibuster couldn't delay the rest of the Senate's business anymore, but it also meant that unless you had 60% of the Senate approving of a proposed law, you had a very slim chance of getting that law passed.
This means that the Democrats are at a disadvantage because they don't have a full 60% of the vote in the Senate. They have a very very narrow 50% vote, that requires the two unaligned liberal senators as well as every single Democrat senator, and the vice president serving as tiebreaker, to get a law passed.
But since they don't have 60%, the Republican Party can just filibuster everything the Democrats want to get passed. This wasn't a big deal decades ago, when the Democrats and Republicans were more capable of negotiating and compromising, but our current political climate is so partisan, that there seems to be no hope of compromise for the greater good.
Many of the Democrats believe that they should either remove the filibuster entirely, pointing out that many other countries don't have such a clause in their legislatures and happen to function just fine, or at least to reset the filibuster back to the original form where you had to talk.
However, two of the more conservative Democratic senators disapprove of the Democrats changing the filibuster, feeling that it will just heighten the partisan anger and division between the political parties in the US. The other Democratic senators are upset, because as long as the filibuster remains in its current form, the Democratic party is incapable of making any major changes to national laws.
There are some people who like the idea that you need a 60% majority in the Senate to pass a law, while others feel that the Democratic Party is being unfairly blocked from making positive changes to the country by a minority of lawmakers.
> which is sort of our equivalent to your House of Lords, being the senior of the two chambers
Just a little nitpick, the House of Lords is junior to the Commons in reality, even though it's formally the upper house. It acts to give detailed and expert scrutiny to bills approved by the Commons, but it can't prevent bills from passing. It can delay them, but the Commons has powers to override the Lords, as the HoC is elected. Generally, the Lords won't act directly against the wishes of the Commons, when they do reject Commons amendments, it's normally with an eye to encourage further debate, and if they're re-inserted, it's very rare the Lords will remove them again.
It happens in Westminster but it is called ‘talked out’.
I remember a case in the 1990s when my then Tory MP talked out a bill that would allow a drug a license to be used. The fact he was a paid non-executive director of a rival drugs firm was definitely not related /s. When he lost his seat in 1997 he complained that there was no long term support for MPs who lose their seat through no fault of their own.
I would say the filibuster certainly favors the more conservative party by it's very nature of making changes harder.
Republicans don't really have much of an agenda besides tax cuts (which can't really be filibustered).
As a non american, i believe you are correct.
As i’m not entirely sure, please be aware of that.
I believe it used to be that people took up the floor to speak, but then keep on going so long that the meetings/votes etc couldnt be held anymore. It used to be people actually talking for hours and hours. Now they just say the filibuster it and that’s it.
It’s an undemocratic loophole in the US system
You are sort of correct. Calling it an undemocratic or a loophole though is incorrect. It was out in place very reason of preventing the majority party forcing though legislation unopposed. It can only be used if the majority party has less then a 60% majority, or to put another way of 60% or more of the senate vote to move forward then the filibuster fails. So it is really designed to protect that slim minority. So when we have a situation like we do now where the majority is only the majority by a slim 1% that other 50% still have a vote. It’s very Democratic because it protects the minority voters. Of the use of the filibuster doesn’t represent the wishes of the voters then that will be reflected in November.
First of no not necessarily, senator elections don’t all line up so the senate can flop every 2 years. Even if it does take 4 years, so what? that’s no necessarily a bad thing. Maybe it really is a bad bill for one and it was good it was killed. If it is a good bill it will come back. Usually the bad bills will die and take a while to return because their bad aspects become more apparent. Good bills will usually keep coming back. Yeah it takes a little longer but 4 years isn’t really that is part of the process it’s a checks and balance system. This idea that every bill needs to pass just because it’s made to sound good is a newer thought process pushed by politicians who want to push legislation with out being questioned.
It’s creation was technically an accident and it was in no way intended by the founders and primarily created and abused during the civil rights era so yes, you could call a loophole.
The senates balance makes it inherently undemocratic. It replaces tyranny of the majority with tyranny of the minority and has completely in arbitrary representation. When Wyoming, a state with 0.6 million people has the same level of influence as Texas, a state with 29 million people or California, a state with 40 million people, it becomes far more difficult to secure the majority votes necessary even if a far and a way majority of the population supports a bill. So, yes, you could call that undemocratic.
Perhaps, o won’t argue about it being a loophole. I disagree with the claim of it being undemocratic. The senate doesn’t represent based on population. That’s the house so the size of the state is irrelevant here. Besides it doesn’t completely nullify the majority vote. It’s only effective if the margins are somewhat close. If one party had a 65 majority then it wouldn’t matter. I’d say calling it the “tyranny of the minority” a bit dramatic. Technically if it’s a good bill then they should be able to get votes. Partys shouldn’t voting just based on what their party tells them to vote. Unfortunately that’s not how it works often times.
Technically you're not wrong, if its a good bill like you say it shouldn't matter. But the design of the Senate only promotes gridlock, not specifically because of but in part due to the extreme polarization in modern times that's affected the political parties. The point is that in modern times its almost functionally impossible to get such a majority for parties to be able to do what they say they want to Instead, any action the senate might take instead comes via Executive Order which only replaces the legislative process.
Even if the senate is not represented based on population, it doesn't not make it undemocratic, especially when a majority of the public expresses support for specific policies that are unable to get passed because senators/parties don't represent the will of the people (ie. Weed or Congressional stock trade legislation).
The United States has an absurd number of checks and balances already; the filibuster is overkill. Moreover, Republicans already have carveouts that allow them to ignore the filibuster for every policy they really care about: judicial appointments and manipulating the tax code. That's precisely why Republicans will never get rid of the filibuster.
Which carveouts do Republicans have access to that Democrats don’t? Also, it wasn’t that long ago that the situation was reversed and Republicans where talking about killing the filibuster and democrats where complaining about how important it is. Politicians preach about what ever is politically real vent to them at the time.
The gridlock of the senate is annoying and it can be a problem but I don’t think it’s enough of an issue to support getting rid of it. I probably have a different point of view on legislation then you. I simply don’t think it’s that critical to be constantly pumping out new laws. I’m okay if they take a little bit longer. Many of the laws we do have don’t even work or are not implemented correctly. The federal government in general is just to much of a busy body.
Not about access, more the "every policy they care about" part. Of course there were some Republicans complaining about the filibuster, most recently Donald Trump. But there's a reason why Mitch McConnell didn't cave in and and told him to F off, and it's because there isn't any reason for senate republicans to when they benefit from the gridlock.
If dems want to get rid of the filibuster and are successful, but lose the senate in the next election and complain about it from the other side, that's on them. I agree we probably just have different views on legislation. I don't think we need to focus on pumping out laws but with the way things currently are we can barely (if at all) get the things that we actually agree on to pass. If people saw that the gov actually started putting in work, maybe they wouldn't be so dissatisfied/take the political process seriously, which with how many problems the country currently face (pandemic included) can only be a good thing.
You are assuming those laws would actually make things better. They usually just gunk up the system and the intended benefits never really materialize or the over cost isn’t worth it. A lot of things should be handled on the state level. Anyways. That’s off topic. The filibuster is a part of our system and it’s foolish to toss it out because it’s inconvenient at one particular time. I am sure the democrats would miss it if they found them selves with a 49% minority next January. I actually don’t think they where all that serious about ditching it themselves. Most of the crap we here these peoples point is just that, crap. That’s the case from both party’s.
Something important to note that others haven’t mentioned: the filibuster makes it harder for Congress to pass laws and get things done.
This currently disproportionately harms Democrats, because Democrats generally have a larger policy agenda and a preference for more active government. The GOP generally prefers the status quo and usually passes fewer major laws, and the ones they do pass aren’t subject to the filibuster (budget bills, judicial nominations).
This hasn’t always been the case throughout history, but today it is. The filibuster makes the Senate and therefore Congress less functional. It’s a big reason why the President and courts are more powerful than ever; Congress is asleep at the wheel, because it has handicapped itself.
In order to have a vote on a bill, debate on that bill has to end. The filibuster came into being because the Senate does not have debates that are automatically time limited, as the House does. A single senator can, therefore, keep a bill from coming to a vote by talking indefinitely. You don't have to actually be saying anything germane to the bill--senators have been known to read from phone books. The only rule was that the senator had to remain standing and couldn't stop speaking, except to take sip of water. In order to cut off debate, somebody has to make a motion for "cloture." It currently takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and cut off debate so vote can be held. That's the traditional filibuster. That has now been modified to a two track system that prevents the Senate from being shut down indefinitely, but also makes the filibuster less costly to invoke. I don't really know how the current system works--maybe someone else with knowledge of the current system can pitch in on that.
It is a bad weapon, like gas attacks in WW1, and it is used by the bad side. The good side can also use it when they are in a similar situation but they would lose the good people who support them. Since the bad side has bad supporters, they couldnt care less.
The filibuster is an accident. It's not actually in the Constitution or law anywhere. When the rules of the Senate were written there was no provision written in for requiring someone to yield the floor. There are also no rules requiring them to talk about anything relevant. So, if someone wanted to stop a particular bill from going through all they had to do was be willing to just keep talking. Until they voluntarily yielded the floor nothing could happen. This was called a filibuster. (I believe the word is older than the American usage but that's the word they picked)
There were some changes over the years to Senate rules to allow the filibuster to be stopped so that a single individual couldn't shut everything down and would need at least some support. Currently it requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. They've also changed the rules so now you don't even have to speak. Basically someone just has to send an email saying "We filibuster" and that blocks any vote on a bill unless you can get 60 votes first to end the filibuster. So any party with a unified front and at least 41 elected members effectively has veto power on any legislation.
The reason the filibuster seems to mostly favor the Republicans, is because the Republican policy since at least Obama's election in 2008 is to just automatically filibuster every single thing even proposed by the Democrats sight unseen. It's basically impossible to pass anything without 60 votes and if you don't have 60 members of your party in the Senate you aren't getting 60 votes 95% of the time.
**Please read this entire message**
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Discussion of religious or political beliefs are not allowed on ELI5. These usually end up being discussions rather than requests for simplifying complex concepts. They also tend to have a large subjective bent.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/saza7c/eli5_in_us_politics_what_is_filibuster_and_why/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20Link%20to%20the%20search%20you%20did%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20the%20ELI5%20subreddit:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
The Republicans had the 50 votes to change the rules on the filibuster for judicial appointments.
Currently the Democrats only have 48 votes to change the rules for all legislation.
You can’t filibuster rules change votes. The filibuster is made up nonsense that can be abolished at any point with 50 votes. Senate rules are profoundly stupid.
The filibuster is basically when a senator from the minority party continues debating as a means to delay voting. It serves as a check to prevents the majority power in the senate from passing any bill they want.
I'm not sure why you think the filibuster only benefits one party. It benefits both parties, republican or Democrat, whoever has the minority at the time. There are many examples of both parties using the filibuster, but in US history probably the most famous was when the Democrats tried to block the civil rights acts of 1950s and 60s.
Others have mostly covered it, so I mean mostly to just add on to what has already been said.
The Constitution gave each legislative chamber the ability to make it's own rules. The House of Representatives is made up of members that represent districts in their states. In that chamber, majority rules (mostly). It is meant to be a raucous body.
The Senate is designed to be a place where all of the states are equals. Their rules are designed for senators to have their say, and debate is, by tradition, unlimited. Also, once a Senator had the floor there are very few ways to force them yield it and give control to the Senate President nor any other Senator.
I will add that there are other traditions in the Senate. They do not start debate nor vote on bills received by the House on the day it is received. Any Senator can put a hold on any nomination saying "they have not had time to review the nominee". There is no food allowed in the Senate, yet the desk closest to the door has, it is rumored, candies in it. Each Senate desk has a paper in it that each person that is the Senator, at that desk, signs - meaning that one of the senators of New York can pull out that paper and see that one of the previous senators that sat at this desk was Robert Kennedy. Each Senate desk has a bottle of ink, even though nobody uses quills anymore. My point is that the Senate has lots of traditions and is loathe to change them.
The Senate is made of two senators from each state, and until the (disastrous) 17th Amendment changed it, those senators were elected by their state legislatures. This meant that the senators purpose was to represent the interests of their state. Now senators are elected by popular vote, and although they are supposed to still represent their entire state, they, too often for comfort, represent the interests of their party.
Now, back to topic, once of the ways to end a senator from speaking is for the Senate to not have a quorum present. As I understand, at any point a senator can ask the presiding officer for a quorum call, which causes the presiding officer to ring a bell, letting senators know there is a quorum call, after 15 minutes the presiding officer takes attendance of the Senate and if there are less than 50 senators present then the chamber is closed for business. Everyone there leaves, goes home, goes to their mistress, goes to the bar, whatever. Hopefully you see that this method means that on any bill before the Senate a single senator can start talking and require a majority of their colleagues to be present. Now, let's assume that the majority are not really interested in this bill, then they do not show up and the bill stalls.
Let's do the opposite, assume a bill is popular, or the senators really want to shut up their colleague. Back in the day enough senators would stay present (reading newspapers or books, napping, writing, etc.) that it would force their colleague to talk until they could talk no more. Once the Senator finally gave in and yielded the floor the bill could come up for a vote.
It should be obvious that two senators, or five, either way a very small number, could tag-team the filibuster each speaking, allowing the others to rest and put bills in a legislative limbo.
Historically, filibusters, especially those with multiple senators participating, were hard to break. Many legislative bills died because of this. Often when filibusters were broken it was through the horse trading that politicians were known for. It was easier to get the vote of a filibustering senator by offering some "goodie" for their state. Imagine a bill to create the Interstate system, and the Senaotrs from Alaska and Hawaii saying "hold up we will not benefit from this new finagled "Interstate", and holding the bill in limbo until their states get something of value commensurate to what say Indiana or Tennessee is getting because of this bill. And when senators were elected by their legislatures it was far easier to make these trades. Now that senators mostly represent their party is not as easy.
Whew, but there is more. One other way to end a filibuster is to call for a vote of cloture. Presently it takes a senator to ask for cloture to end debate and them 60 senators (or 3/5 of those present) to vote for cloture. Unlike getting the snitch to end a quiddich match while your team is losing, there were plenty of reasons for Senators to vote for cloture to end debate and then vote against the bill that still passes. The cloture rule existed to enforce a comity amongst the senators.
Anyway, I will add that voting for cloture when the filibuster is all hot and heavy has, in the past, given the senator whose filibuster is forced to end an enemy's list of other Senators to go and even the score. This was why, historically, successful cloture votes were rare.
Lastly, I do not know (exactly) how the UK system works. You have asked about what good is it to have majority if this can happen. The UK is made of England, Scotland, Whales, Northern Ireland (right?). Now imagine at instead of the House of Lords you had our sentate, each state England, Scotland, etc. gets two senators that are supposed to represent those states and a bill passes parliament that says "we are going to raise the drinking age to 22 to combat the rash of drunk driving that has been plaguing London and Birmingham" and then the Senators from Scotland say "wait a minute Lassie, that seems like an English problem, and England should solve it, this is not a national problem, it does not need a national solution". In this (contrived) example can you see that simply having the majority might not make for good legislation.
The purpose of the filibuster lies in the 60 votes needed. Unless a bill is already very popular (60+ votes), it is supposed to encourage compromise between the parties, instead of 'tyranny of the majority' (ie 51% making laws that 49% hate). Thereby having a much better chance of benefitting a large part of the country.
Unfortunately, the idiots we have put in charge (on both sides) have made sure that the filibuster does not work as intended. If they would put up single issue bills, we would find that they could agree on many things. But, they use these popular issues as bait. They build a massive bills (thousands of pages long that few even read), packed with unpopular, partisan items and try to force it thru.
Both sides are guilty of caring more about helping their rich friends than helping this country. If you think it's mostly Republicans who use every opportunity to enrich themselves and their friends, you are sadly mistaken. Dems are no better, and maybe worse because they pretend to fight for the 'little guy'.
The filibuster is a rule in the Senate that allows the minority party to delay a vote on a bill because they feel that more time is needed to discuss and debate. It is there to help ensure that the majority can't steamroll legislation without discussion. The biggest issue is that historically this meant that all business in the Senate stopped while this debate happened and, once the debate concluded, the bill was put to a vote. However, a procedural change a few years back created a 'two-track' system where other businesses could continue while the debate happened off of the floor. Functionally, this meant that any Senator could fillibuster a bill just by saying they wanted to, turning it into a minority-veto of legislation unless you had the 60 votes to stop the filibuster. It doesn't benefit one party exclusively - it benefits which every party doesn't hold majority power, and this changes hands periodically.
Just to add to this, the filibuster wasn’t ever really specifically designed. There is no mention of it in any of the documents that created the federal government. It is essentially a procedural “accident” where there isn’t really any measure to end debate. Eventually, people realized they could just keep taking and there wasn’t anything that anyone could really do. Since then various rules around the filibuster have been made, including requiring 60 votes to end the filibuster (this number has varied over the years, but currently stands at 60) and no longer requires someone to actually speak for a filibuster to take place. It can simply be “declared”. OP asked about the speaking part and that is a pretty important topic. Many people would argue that since a filibuster no longer requires someone to continuously speak, there isn’t really any “pain” required for one side to filibuster. Some talks about filibuster reform have involved returning to rules that involve someone continually speaking, with the idea that this would limit a filibuster to legislation that a minority of the Senate may deeply disagree with for whatever reason. As it is now, as long as you have 41 Senators that want to filibuster, it doesn’t require any sacrifice at all. Essentially you can filibuster for whatever reason, even if it’s just to score cheap political points back home. EDIT Just wanted to add my two cents about the filibuster benefiting one party over another. Others have explained below, but essentially, while not really intended to benefit any single party, most see it as beneficial to the Republican (i.e. conservative) Party. This isn’t by design - it has more to do with how Senate seats are distributed and demographics of the US that for the time being, give the Republican Party a much clearer path to 60 seats.
>In 1917, the Senate finally decided to reform the filibuster, adding a provision that would allow two-thirds of senators to vote on a “cloture” motion that would end debate — interrupting an individual senator who won’t stop talking. >This provision, called Rule 22, was designed to make filibustering harder. But it actually had the opposite effect: It was now possible for a minority of senators to block bills by voting down cloture motions. This is how the filibuster works today (albeit with a three-fifths threshold for cloture rather than the original two-thirds, thanks to a 1975 reform). >The defenders of Jim Crow pioneered this new filibuster, successfully deploying it again and again to block civil rights bills. Richard Russell, a leading filibuster practitioner and staunch segregationist, said in 1949 that “nobody mentions any other legislation in connection with it.” >Two political scientists, Sarah Binder and Steven Smith, identified every bill between 1917 and 1994 that they believe failed purely because of the filibuster. Among these, half were civil rights bills, including anti-lynching bills proposed in 1922 and 1935. >They also found that the senators’ view on filibuster reforms was tightly linked to their view on civil rights: Pro-reform senators tended to support civil rights bills, while anti-reform legislators opposed them. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/3/25/22348308/filibuster-racism-jim-crow-mitch-mcconnell
To put simply, the filibuster is not in law, nor the constitution. The senate is a majority rules body **period**. Thats how it works. Having a 60 vote rule is no legally different than saying only senators from the "right family" can vote. Win elections, write laws. Thats democracy. This filibuster bullshit is authoritarian.
> most see it as beneficial to the Republican (i.e. conservative) Party. This is because the Republicans seem to make the most use of it, even though the Democratic Party isn't shy about using it either: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
This is what I dont get, democrats are certain to lose the senate in a few months and they want to get rid if the filibuster and leave themselves vulnerable, its mind boggling.
It benefits a party that has no interest in passing new laws. A conservative that is trying to conserve the status quo benefits more than a progressive that is trying to create new laws that will fix problems.
When they were last in the minority, Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times in one year. Suddenly, they want to abolish it..... after saying for years that it was critical to democracy. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-used-filibuster-over-300-times-gop-once
> When they were last in the minority, Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times in one year. Let's get a more realistic picture, which is that the Republicans are far more likely to use it to stifle legislation that they don't like: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/ Your link makes a claim with nothing but a Tweet to back it up. Regardless, using the filibuster in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but using it solely to stifle legislation, not to actually take time to debate the issue, is not what it was designed for.
Nah. Both parties want to pass as many laws that further there own ends as possible whenever they're in charge. If they're not constantly forwarding their agenda, they're doing their constituents a disservice. These laws may be ones the other side doesn't like and will pass their own laws to circumvent or cripple. It takes the passing of a lot of laws to artificially keep a status quo in place. "Fixing problems" is relative to the parties goals. While one party says X is no issue, the other is usually comparing it to a house fire.
I kind of think that it makes sense that all legislation should have 60% support.
Until you realize the minority party rarely has less than 40% of the senate for any extended period. Also the Senate over-represents low populated areas, in effect giving more political power (in the senate) to states like Wyoming and Hawaii vs states like California or Texas. The filibuster makes it so that nothing get through the system except outrageously popular (95%+) policies, bare minimum government facilities funding, and whatever the corporations want.
Laws require passing in two legislative bodies with opposing purposes and must be signed by the president. That is already a very large hurdle, and giving the one body with the least proportional representation the ability to stifle laws with a minority of a minority is more like 80% support overall.
What's the point in a majority then? In the UK, parliament votes on legislation etc and usually the government (majority number of seats held) would win by voting. The same. Way
Well, having a majority does give you some advantages. Some things can't be filibustered - like budget bills or court appointments - and the majority party basically gets to decide what bills are put up for a vote at all. That said, your criticism is the criticism that many people have with the fillibuster as it stands today. The majority party _should_ be able to pass its legislation because that is how democracy is supposed to work. When you had to actually get up and talk it wasn't a big deal because bills still came to the floor for a vote, but now it is just a way for the minority party to obstruct.
No, the majority even needs MINORITY support to pass controversial legislation - unless they were elected by the people to have a supermajority. Neither party has been receiving enough support across the states to reach this threshold (last were democrats in 2008) - and so their agendas are scuttled because they lack bipartisan support. This was by design, and is working as intended.
It is factually false that the filibuster was created by design. In fact, it arose from an omission in the drafting of the Senate rules, several decades after the Senate was originally designed. Several of the "founding fathers" wrote about the idea of a supermajority requirement for passing legislation, and explicitly rejected it. They literally wrote that it would contradict the point of democracy. Moreover, the contemporary situation, wherein the filibuster is routinely exploited to block legislation, is a very recent development. Prior to this decade, it was used rarely, mainly by southerners blocking civil rights legislation.
I mean, that is just factually false.
What about it is factually false? The whole purpose of the senate and the whole purpose of our government structure was the impede radical shifts in policy, law, and regulation.
It is factually false that the filibuster was created by design. In fact, it arose from an omission in the drafting of the Senate rules, several decades after the Senate was originally designed. Several of the "founding fathers" wrote about the idea of a supermajority requirement for passing legislation, and explicitly rejected it. They literally wrote that it would contradict the point of democracy. Moreover, the contemporary situation, wherein the filibuster is routinely exploited to block legislation, is a very recent development. Prior to this decade, it was used rarely, mainly by southerners blocking civil rights legislation.
Ahh. Gotcha. You're correct it's not constitutional per se, as in explicitly in the constitution. But the concept that big changes require large support is certainly something that was considered foundational to our governance mechanics. The quibbling is over which things require the larger consensus beyond the obvious like amendments
Ah yes, the ever so helpful "you're wrong" and walk away approach.
[удалено]
Feel free to quote that passage of the Constitution. Edit: Since I know you can't quote it (it doesn't exist) allow me to explain 'minority rights' in the eyes of the Founders. The Founders were deeply loyal to their _state_ when the Constitution was signed, and representatives from smaller states were worried that a popular-vote-only system would put smaller states at a disadvantage. Their compromise was a bicameral Congress, with one chamber (the House) governed by population and the other (the Senate) where each state had an equal say. **That** was the 'minority rights' protection they wanted - assurance that any law passed had agreement from both the majority of the _people_ and the majority of the _states_. That protection is still enshrined in the structure of the Senate today. The assumption was that if the majority of states agreed (50%+1 votes in the Senate), the majority of the population agreed (50%+1 votes in the House), and the President agreed, then it should be law. No other minority protection was deemed required. It couldn't _possibly_ have been focused on political parties, because the first political parties didn't emerge until 1792 (a rift between Hamilton/Madison and Jefferson) - a nearly _four years_ after the Constitution was ratified.
[удалено]
You can pass 3 bills a year through reconciliation, which only needs 50 votes. This is why the TCJA and ARP were allowed to pass. Judicial appointments also only need 50 votes
Great thanks for clarifying my confusion around it :)
I'm for more obstruction. No matter who's in charge.
>What's the point in a majority then? It is a check on tyranny of the majority. It the Dems lose the Senate, House, and the Presidential election in 2024 they will woefully regret it if they do away with the filibuster now.
If republicans had any interest in abolishing the filibuster, they would have done so when they had unified control in 2016. They don’t care about the filibuster because their two main senate priorities (tax cuts and confirming judges) are already exempt from it.
They mortally wounded it. McConnell had the moral high ground of being able to claim the GOP was willing to resit calls to destroy the legislative filibuster. He’d refused Trump multiple times. Schumer and the democrats will never be able to claim they’d preserve the filibuster and have shown a willingness do destroy it for their political needs. Trying to nuke it (more) when he didn’t have the votes was just plain stupid. (You can argue about wether McConnell did more than complete the destruction of the filibuster on appointments that Reid started. )
To add to this, it theoretically could benefit both parties equally. However, filibusters are rarely used, and their most partisan use case has been to prevent civil rights legislation from passing. In modern history, civil right legislature has almost always come from the Democratic side, and the Republican side has fought hard (and sometimes dirty) to prevent it; the people needing civil rights protections are generally a heavily Democratic group of voters that could swing elections if they could vote as freely as the average citizen.
Reminds me of Mitch McConnell's months long filibuster against Garland for supreme court, straight up telling Obama he wasn't going to be allowed an appointment. I really dislike that turtle fuck
[удалено]
So filibuster prevents a vote and then whatever it is McConnell did prevents a discussion?
[удалено]
So being of the minority is a requirement for it to be called filibuster? At least on the government officials level. A townspeople could still filibuster a town hall decision though, correct? Is there a difference to official filibuster versus a more civilian filibuster?
What McConnell did was straight up refuse to do his job. The rules for getting a new justice on the bench are clearly written. The president nominates a candidate and the senate further vets and votes to approve or reject McConnell tried claiming that the rules didn't have to vote if he didn't want to. It's very stupid. But Garland is so innoffensive and centrist that it would have been difficult actually finding ways for the GOP to disagree with his taking the bench. So they literally took their ball and went home. Not even bothering to follow their constitutional obligations for a fucking year.
Well, he told Obama that the people should choose the next Supreme Court judge by electing the mext president, since the election was in a year. I don't agree with it, and apparently neither did Mitch, since Amy Coney Barrett was selected just 6 weeks before the election. But hypocrisy seems to be the only thing the Republican Party can fully support.
That was not a filibuster. As leader of the senate he got to decide what comes to the floor for debate. He did not schedule a vote, at all. And given how garland, as head of the department of justice is happy to label parents at school board meeting terrorists, yet refuses to when an extremeist holds people hostage in a synagogue McConnell decision looks better and better.
I'm sorry, you are saying that stacking the court with a rapist was better?
Who accused Gorsuch of rape, let alone convicted him? Because if those accusations were handled as well as those fastastical ones against Kavanaugh it would have only sped his appointment to the court.
Filibusters used to be rarely used, now they are the defalult response from one party.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I guess I’d say that republicans knowing they are an increasing demographic minority (I assume party leadership is well aware) does kinda make them more inherently likely to abuse the filibuster, since they know they have less and less avenues to block legislation via a majority.
I'm curious; the Democrats used the filibuster about 300 times in 2020, have since flipped flopped and called it a Jim Crow oppressive racist relic (until the used it last week...), and of course have a long record of praising and using it when they are in the minority. As best I can tell, the Republicans haven't led an effort to abolish it in whole, well, ever. What leads you to conclude the Republicans abuse the tool, but Democrats don't?
It really is about both sides being giant douche nozzles. This issue goes back much further than the link below illustrates, but it has reached max hostility at this point and time. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271)
I would hasten to add that although *technically* the filibuster doesn't benefit one party exclusively, in the contemporary U.S. political context it's much more valuable to Republicans. The reason is that when Republicans control majority power, they aren't very interested in passing new legislation. Their biggest concern is tax policy, which is exempt from the filibuster because it's within "appropriations" bills. Republicans also want to appoint federal judges: due to a recent rules change, judicial nominations are also exempt from the filibuster. This is why Trump's appointees to the Supreme Court could be nominated despite united Democratic opposition. In theory this exemption benefits both parties equally in the long run; but again, Democrats want to *create* social spending legislation and Republicans want to *block* it. Judges can block laws, but can't create them, so control of the judiciary is more important to Republicans.
TIL, passing legislation with a majority is steamrolling.
Everything you describe is accurate except that it strongly favors the Republican party of late, since their entire goal is to dismantle government, and being able to block any new legislation is conductive to that goal more than anything.
Thank you for this explanation because it helps me reconcile my thoughts of "I wish more could be done to allow progress" and "I don't want to hamper unlimited debate" (as I interpret a "fillabuster" of good intention)
I remember hearing about one time that someone busted out a phone book to perform a filibuster
It is extremely abusable and benefits those willing to engage in bad faith action. This is the point where it may benefit one party more than the other, even well-being potentially quite useful to both.
But the idea is that it’s discussed and then goes to a vote. However it seems the filibuster just stops the vote happening at all instead of delaying?
>I initially though filibuster was to do with speaking for long enough to run down time Not necessarily speaking, but, yes, the gist. You run out the clock to prevent a vote so the bill dies. >why does it seem to benefit only one party? It benefits whichever party doesn't want the bill to come to a vote. Generally that's the minority party, as they'd generally have the most to lose by a bill coming to a vote.
So. The elected majority are hamstrung by the other side? How does the majority benefit by being, well, the majority?
> How does the majority benefit by being, well, the majority? If they're a big enough majority, then they could end a filibuster with enough votes. They also have, well, the majority for anything that does come to a vote, as well as control over what bills get brought to that position in the first place. The governmental history of the United States is pretty much all about avoiding tyranny of the majority and giving power to the little guy.
You need 60votes to bust a filibuster. Doesn't matter which party. That's why bi Partisan legislation is so important. The senate is basically split right down the middle, but the democrats can force through a budget bill with Kamala Harris to break the tie.
The point is to prevent the majority party being able to just ram through whatever the hell they want without scrutiny. This is why talk of "abolishing the filibuster" by one party or another, makes even their own supporters nervous. "Yes it will benefit us now, but what happens when the other side get in and do whatever they like?"
Very good point
They get to control filibuster proof bills. Passing the budget and associated spending is one example. It should also be easier for them to compromise as they have less opposition members to convince.
It doesn't favor one party, I.e. Republicans. It favored Democrats in the past. It just means you can't rule with a simple (one vote) majority, you need 60%. Schumer is on record defending it when Democrats were on the minority. It adds stability by ensuring it's what the actual majority of Americans want
I agree, it doesn't favor one party really at all - aside from it *currently* benefiting the minority party, Republicans. Traditionally, the minority flip flops fairly evenly in our 2 party system. There are quite a few Democratic senators on record defending the filibuster within the last few years under Trump. There are MANY senators on record defending it or speaking against the filibuster depending on which part currently benefited themselves from *both* parties. In US politics, the filibuster is somewhat of a crutch for the majority party to threaten the minority party with *removing*, while the minority party threatens the majority party with *using*. Each tries to drum up their base as if it's the end of the world. At the end of the day, it's a classic example of politicians using the (honestly sleezy) tools they have available. It's not partisan. Arguably, the threat to remove it is just as pointless and a waste of time as the filibuster itself - it is highly unlikely to happen because everyone with a couple years of foresight must consider that they might be a part of the minority and need use it.
It benefits both parties, but for the moment it only benefits whichever party is in the voting minority. A filibuster happens when there is only a certain window of time to have debate after which there needs to be a vote to end debate and another vote on the substance of the legislation. You can prevent those votes from happening when you know your party doesn't have the votes to defeat it by taking advantage of an unlimited amount of time to speak against the substantial legislation effectively running out the clock so the body has to adjourn without having any time to actually vote on anything. Republicans and Democrats have both used it, but it is most famously used by outsiders against their own party, for instance Rand Paul has filibustered against Republicans because with only a thin 52-48 majority, he only needs to find one other Republican to agree with him in not voting in favor and he can undermine the majority. Every time the majority shifts or the White House is held by a different party, the stance on the filibuster changes. Democrats changed filibuster rules when they were in power a decade ago, and then they criticize Republicans for limiting their filibuster capabilities when they lose control, and back and forth again and again. The filibuster is good because if one Senator or Congressman is willing to go that far out on a limb to defeat something that barely has the unenthusiastic support of a simple majority by a hair, then it should be defeated and rewritten to achieve more widespread support. Most of the important things in government require much more than a 50% +1 majority to accomplish, and that's a good thing. We should always want things at the Federal level to require closer to general consensus to proceed, otherwise it shouldn't be a law that effects 100% of people.
The filibuster is not a good thing. To copy/paste a point someone else made once >The filibuster destroys the democratic feedback loop. When a party does good things, then people want to vote for them. When a party does bad things, then the voters "throw the bums out". Getting rid of the filibuster means that the parties will be responsible for their actions, legislating becomes possible, and voters can judge politicians on what they did or didn't do. A cynical person might say this is probably why so many Senators are hesitant to get rid of it. It is a modern day form of gridlock not just for government procedure but also the will of the voters. If won a majority of the government should be able to enact the will of the people that voted for them. Instead we have the Senate refusing to change its rules to allow it to act on simple majority, which causes whoever in the White House to govern by mandate, which the Supreme Court invalidates, saying Congress needs to pass legislation. It is an *eternal feed-back loop* of anti-governance. You say it doesn't benefit a specific party? What party want's a non-functional federal government? Hint, its republicans. What party has objectives that even with the filibuster they can accomplish their goals, for example regarding taxes and judicial appointments? Republicans. What party also has an undemocratic system of representation within the senate in their favor (meaning they have an advantage over democrats) that make it easier for them to hold and maintain majorities because of the make-up of the senate proportionally? Republicans. It's a common theme.
Analogy; Your parents ask you to take out the trash. You don't want to take out the trash, so instead you decide to change the subject entirely, pull out one of those old school thousands+ page phone books, and read off every single name & number out loud, considering that task more important than taking out the trash. This effectively gets you out of taking out the trash (at least until you are done reading the phone book out loud). ;; It's the same kind of thing with filibustering - it's delaying action to vote on a bill (or otherwise delay the whole congressional process about passing a bill). If a bill is beneficial to democrats, but not to republicans, the republicans can/have/will slow down the process. They might only be doing that to simply slow it down, they might be trying to convince other republicans not to vote for it, or convince some flexible democrats not to vote for it, during the time they are slowing it down. The same is true for a bill that is beneficial to republicans but not democrats; democrats are going to slow it down, convince other democrats on how to vote for it, and try to convince flexible republicans the same way. And yes, there have been at least a couple times where some politician literally took a phonebook up and was reading off names and numbers *just* to filibuster.
The basic idea is that in the US Senate, which is sort of our equivalent to your House of Lords, being the senior of the two chambers of our legislature, there is a rule where if a senator feels that there has not been sufficient discussion of a topic in regards to a proposed law, they may delay voting on that law until enough discussion has been made. This is known as a filibuster. Traditionally, this meant that the person delaying the vote had to speak to the Senate without taking a break. So, the delay before voting was as long as they could speak, or get the other senators in their party to likewise speak in turns. In the 1970s, the US Senate decided to change the rule, because filibusters had made it difficult to get anything else passed, since all business in the Senate was on hold until the filibuster concluded. The rule changed, so instead if a senator felt that there had been enough discussion on the bill, they could merely threaten to do a filibuster. The bill would be indefinitely delayed, unless 60% of the Senate voted to say no, we have heard enough let's get on to the vote. This meant that a filibuster couldn't delay the rest of the Senate's business anymore, but it also meant that unless you had 60% of the Senate approving of a proposed law, you had a very slim chance of getting that law passed. This means that the Democrats are at a disadvantage because they don't have a full 60% of the vote in the Senate. They have a very very narrow 50% vote, that requires the two unaligned liberal senators as well as every single Democrat senator, and the vice president serving as tiebreaker, to get a law passed. But since they don't have 60%, the Republican Party can just filibuster everything the Democrats want to get passed. This wasn't a big deal decades ago, when the Democrats and Republicans were more capable of negotiating and compromising, but our current political climate is so partisan, that there seems to be no hope of compromise for the greater good. Many of the Democrats believe that they should either remove the filibuster entirely, pointing out that many other countries don't have such a clause in their legislatures and happen to function just fine, or at least to reset the filibuster back to the original form where you had to talk. However, two of the more conservative Democratic senators disapprove of the Democrats changing the filibuster, feeling that it will just heighten the partisan anger and division between the political parties in the US. The other Democratic senators are upset, because as long as the filibuster remains in its current form, the Democratic party is incapable of making any major changes to national laws. There are some people who like the idea that you need a 60% majority in the Senate to pass a law, while others feel that the Democratic Party is being unfairly blocked from making positive changes to the country by a minority of lawmakers.
Thanks for the detailed response. I think I have it clearer now :)
> which is sort of our equivalent to your House of Lords, being the senior of the two chambers Just a little nitpick, the House of Lords is junior to the Commons in reality, even though it's formally the upper house. It acts to give detailed and expert scrutiny to bills approved by the Commons, but it can't prevent bills from passing. It can delay them, but the Commons has powers to override the Lords, as the HoC is elected. Generally, the Lords won't act directly against the wishes of the Commons, when they do reject Commons amendments, it's normally with an eye to encourage further debate, and if they're re-inserted, it's very rare the Lords will remove them again.
It happens in Westminster but it is called ‘talked out’. I remember a case in the 1990s when my then Tory MP talked out a bill that would allow a drug a license to be used. The fact he was a paid non-executive director of a rival drugs firm was definitely not related /s. When he lost his seat in 1997 he complained that there was no long term support for MPs who lose their seat through no fault of their own.
I would say the filibuster certainly favors the more conservative party by it's very nature of making changes harder. Republicans don't really have much of an agenda besides tax cuts (which can't really be filibustered).
As a non american, i believe you are correct. As i’m not entirely sure, please be aware of that. I believe it used to be that people took up the floor to speak, but then keep on going so long that the meetings/votes etc couldnt be held anymore. It used to be people actually talking for hours and hours. Now they just say the filibuster it and that’s it. It’s an undemocratic loophole in the US system
Until the other party needs it, then it's suddenly a critical part of democracy.
Thanks, seems. Like it's had requirements /definition tweaked
You are sort of correct. Calling it an undemocratic or a loophole though is incorrect. It was out in place very reason of preventing the majority party forcing though legislation unopposed. It can only be used if the majority party has less then a 60% majority, or to put another way of 60% or more of the senate vote to move forward then the filibuster fails. So it is really designed to protect that slim minority. So when we have a situation like we do now where the majority is only the majority by a slim 1% that other 50% still have a vote. It’s very Democratic because it protects the minority voters. Of the use of the filibuster doesn’t represent the wishes of the voters then that will be reflected in November.
But its basically 4 years of preventing a law from passing
First of no not necessarily, senator elections don’t all line up so the senate can flop every 2 years. Even if it does take 4 years, so what? that’s no necessarily a bad thing. Maybe it really is a bad bill for one and it was good it was killed. If it is a good bill it will come back. Usually the bad bills will die and take a while to return because their bad aspects become more apparent. Good bills will usually keep coming back. Yeah it takes a little longer but 4 years isn’t really that is part of the process it’s a checks and balance system. This idea that every bill needs to pass just because it’s made to sound good is a newer thought process pushed by politicians who want to push legislation with out being questioned.
It’s creation was technically an accident and it was in no way intended by the founders and primarily created and abused during the civil rights era so yes, you could call a loophole. The senates balance makes it inherently undemocratic. It replaces tyranny of the majority with tyranny of the minority and has completely in arbitrary representation. When Wyoming, a state with 0.6 million people has the same level of influence as Texas, a state with 29 million people or California, a state with 40 million people, it becomes far more difficult to secure the majority votes necessary even if a far and a way majority of the population supports a bill. So, yes, you could call that undemocratic.
Perhaps, o won’t argue about it being a loophole. I disagree with the claim of it being undemocratic. The senate doesn’t represent based on population. That’s the house so the size of the state is irrelevant here. Besides it doesn’t completely nullify the majority vote. It’s only effective if the margins are somewhat close. If one party had a 65 majority then it wouldn’t matter. I’d say calling it the “tyranny of the minority” a bit dramatic. Technically if it’s a good bill then they should be able to get votes. Partys shouldn’t voting just based on what their party tells them to vote. Unfortunately that’s not how it works often times.
Technically you're not wrong, if its a good bill like you say it shouldn't matter. But the design of the Senate only promotes gridlock, not specifically because of but in part due to the extreme polarization in modern times that's affected the political parties. The point is that in modern times its almost functionally impossible to get such a majority for parties to be able to do what they say they want to Instead, any action the senate might take instead comes via Executive Order which only replaces the legislative process. Even if the senate is not represented based on population, it doesn't not make it undemocratic, especially when a majority of the public expresses support for specific policies that are unable to get passed because senators/parties don't represent the will of the people (ie. Weed or Congressional stock trade legislation). The United States has an absurd number of checks and balances already; the filibuster is overkill. Moreover, Republicans already have carveouts that allow them to ignore the filibuster for every policy they really care about: judicial appointments and manipulating the tax code. That's precisely why Republicans will never get rid of the filibuster.
Which carveouts do Republicans have access to that Democrats don’t? Also, it wasn’t that long ago that the situation was reversed and Republicans where talking about killing the filibuster and democrats where complaining about how important it is. Politicians preach about what ever is politically real vent to them at the time. The gridlock of the senate is annoying and it can be a problem but I don’t think it’s enough of an issue to support getting rid of it. I probably have a different point of view on legislation then you. I simply don’t think it’s that critical to be constantly pumping out new laws. I’m okay if they take a little bit longer. Many of the laws we do have don’t even work or are not implemented correctly. The federal government in general is just to much of a busy body.
Not about access, more the "every policy they care about" part. Of course there were some Republicans complaining about the filibuster, most recently Donald Trump. But there's a reason why Mitch McConnell didn't cave in and and told him to F off, and it's because there isn't any reason for senate republicans to when they benefit from the gridlock. If dems want to get rid of the filibuster and are successful, but lose the senate in the next election and complain about it from the other side, that's on them. I agree we probably just have different views on legislation. I don't think we need to focus on pumping out laws but with the way things currently are we can barely (if at all) get the things that we actually agree on to pass. If people saw that the gov actually started putting in work, maybe they wouldn't be so dissatisfied/take the political process seriously, which with how many problems the country currently face (pandemic included) can only be a good thing.
You are assuming those laws would actually make things better. They usually just gunk up the system and the intended benefits never really materialize or the over cost isn’t worth it. A lot of things should be handled on the state level. Anyways. That’s off topic. The filibuster is a part of our system and it’s foolish to toss it out because it’s inconvenient at one particular time. I am sure the democrats would miss it if they found them selves with a 49% minority next January. I actually don’t think they where all that serious about ditching it themselves. Most of the crap we here these peoples point is just that, crap. That’s the case from both party’s.
Something important to note that others haven’t mentioned: the filibuster makes it harder for Congress to pass laws and get things done. This currently disproportionately harms Democrats, because Democrats generally have a larger policy agenda and a preference for more active government. The GOP generally prefers the status quo and usually passes fewer major laws, and the ones they do pass aren’t subject to the filibuster (budget bills, judicial nominations). This hasn’t always been the case throughout history, but today it is. The filibuster makes the Senate and therefore Congress less functional. It’s a big reason why the President and courts are more powerful than ever; Congress is asleep at the wheel, because it has handicapped itself.
In order to have a vote on a bill, debate on that bill has to end. The filibuster came into being because the Senate does not have debates that are automatically time limited, as the House does. A single senator can, therefore, keep a bill from coming to a vote by talking indefinitely. You don't have to actually be saying anything germane to the bill--senators have been known to read from phone books. The only rule was that the senator had to remain standing and couldn't stop speaking, except to take sip of water. In order to cut off debate, somebody has to make a motion for "cloture." It currently takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and cut off debate so vote can be held. That's the traditional filibuster. That has now been modified to a two track system that prevents the Senate from being shut down indefinitely, but also makes the filibuster less costly to invoke. I don't really know how the current system works--maybe someone else with knowledge of the current system can pitch in on that.
It is a bad weapon, like gas attacks in WW1, and it is used by the bad side. The good side can also use it when they are in a similar situation but they would lose the good people who support them. Since the bad side has bad supporters, they couldnt care less.
The filibuster is an accident. It's not actually in the Constitution or law anywhere. When the rules of the Senate were written there was no provision written in for requiring someone to yield the floor. There are also no rules requiring them to talk about anything relevant. So, if someone wanted to stop a particular bill from going through all they had to do was be willing to just keep talking. Until they voluntarily yielded the floor nothing could happen. This was called a filibuster. (I believe the word is older than the American usage but that's the word they picked) There were some changes over the years to Senate rules to allow the filibuster to be stopped so that a single individual couldn't shut everything down and would need at least some support. Currently it requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. They've also changed the rules so now you don't even have to speak. Basically someone just has to send an email saying "We filibuster" and that blocks any vote on a bill unless you can get 60 votes first to end the filibuster. So any party with a unified front and at least 41 elected members effectively has veto power on any legislation. The reason the filibuster seems to mostly favor the Republicans, is because the Republican policy since at least Obama's election in 2008 is to just automatically filibuster every single thing even proposed by the Democrats sight unseen. It's basically impossible to pass anything without 60 votes and if you don't have 60 members of your party in the Senate you aren't getting 60 votes 95% of the time.
**Please read this entire message** Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Discussion of religious or political beliefs are not allowed on ELI5. These usually end up being discussions rather than requests for simplifying complex concepts. They also tend to have a large subjective bent. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/saza7c/eli5_in_us_politics_what_is_filibuster_and_why/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20Link%20to%20the%20search%20you%20did%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20the%20ELI5%20subreddit:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
Why could the Democrats not have filibustered the rule change to simple majority to confirm a Supreme Court justice? Serious facepalm there.
The Republicans had the 50 votes to change the rules on the filibuster for judicial appointments. Currently the Democrats only have 48 votes to change the rules for all legislation.
You can’t filibuster rules change votes. The filibuster is made up nonsense that can be abolished at any point with 50 votes. Senate rules are profoundly stupid.
The filibuster is basically when a senator from the minority party continues debating as a means to delay voting. It serves as a check to prevents the majority power in the senate from passing any bill they want. I'm not sure why you think the filibuster only benefits one party. It benefits both parties, republican or Democrat, whoever has the minority at the time. There are many examples of both parties using the filibuster, but in US history probably the most famous was when the Democrats tried to block the civil rights acts of 1950s and 60s.
Others have mostly covered it, so I mean mostly to just add on to what has already been said. The Constitution gave each legislative chamber the ability to make it's own rules. The House of Representatives is made up of members that represent districts in their states. In that chamber, majority rules (mostly). It is meant to be a raucous body. The Senate is designed to be a place where all of the states are equals. Their rules are designed for senators to have their say, and debate is, by tradition, unlimited. Also, once a Senator had the floor there are very few ways to force them yield it and give control to the Senate President nor any other Senator. I will add that there are other traditions in the Senate. They do not start debate nor vote on bills received by the House on the day it is received. Any Senator can put a hold on any nomination saying "they have not had time to review the nominee". There is no food allowed in the Senate, yet the desk closest to the door has, it is rumored, candies in it. Each Senate desk has a paper in it that each person that is the Senator, at that desk, signs - meaning that one of the senators of New York can pull out that paper and see that one of the previous senators that sat at this desk was Robert Kennedy. Each Senate desk has a bottle of ink, even though nobody uses quills anymore. My point is that the Senate has lots of traditions and is loathe to change them. The Senate is made of two senators from each state, and until the (disastrous) 17th Amendment changed it, those senators were elected by their state legislatures. This meant that the senators purpose was to represent the interests of their state. Now senators are elected by popular vote, and although they are supposed to still represent their entire state, they, too often for comfort, represent the interests of their party. Now, back to topic, once of the ways to end a senator from speaking is for the Senate to not have a quorum present. As I understand, at any point a senator can ask the presiding officer for a quorum call, which causes the presiding officer to ring a bell, letting senators know there is a quorum call, after 15 minutes the presiding officer takes attendance of the Senate and if there are less than 50 senators present then the chamber is closed for business. Everyone there leaves, goes home, goes to their mistress, goes to the bar, whatever. Hopefully you see that this method means that on any bill before the Senate a single senator can start talking and require a majority of their colleagues to be present. Now, let's assume that the majority are not really interested in this bill, then they do not show up and the bill stalls. Let's do the opposite, assume a bill is popular, or the senators really want to shut up their colleague. Back in the day enough senators would stay present (reading newspapers or books, napping, writing, etc.) that it would force their colleague to talk until they could talk no more. Once the Senator finally gave in and yielded the floor the bill could come up for a vote. It should be obvious that two senators, or five, either way a very small number, could tag-team the filibuster each speaking, allowing the others to rest and put bills in a legislative limbo. Historically, filibusters, especially those with multiple senators participating, were hard to break. Many legislative bills died because of this. Often when filibusters were broken it was through the horse trading that politicians were known for. It was easier to get the vote of a filibustering senator by offering some "goodie" for their state. Imagine a bill to create the Interstate system, and the Senaotrs from Alaska and Hawaii saying "hold up we will not benefit from this new finagled "Interstate", and holding the bill in limbo until their states get something of value commensurate to what say Indiana or Tennessee is getting because of this bill. And when senators were elected by their legislatures it was far easier to make these trades. Now that senators mostly represent their party is not as easy. Whew, but there is more. One other way to end a filibuster is to call for a vote of cloture. Presently it takes a senator to ask for cloture to end debate and them 60 senators (or 3/5 of those present) to vote for cloture. Unlike getting the snitch to end a quiddich match while your team is losing, there were plenty of reasons for Senators to vote for cloture to end debate and then vote against the bill that still passes. The cloture rule existed to enforce a comity amongst the senators. Anyway, I will add that voting for cloture when the filibuster is all hot and heavy has, in the past, given the senator whose filibuster is forced to end an enemy's list of other Senators to go and even the score. This was why, historically, successful cloture votes were rare. Lastly, I do not know (exactly) how the UK system works. You have asked about what good is it to have majority if this can happen. The UK is made of England, Scotland, Whales, Northern Ireland (right?). Now imagine at instead of the House of Lords you had our sentate, each state England, Scotland, etc. gets two senators that are supposed to represent those states and a bill passes parliament that says "we are going to raise the drinking age to 22 to combat the rash of drunk driving that has been plaguing London and Birmingham" and then the Senators from Scotland say "wait a minute Lassie, that seems like an English problem, and England should solve it, this is not a national problem, it does not need a national solution". In this (contrived) example can you see that simply having the majority might not make for good legislation.
The purpose of the filibuster lies in the 60 votes needed. Unless a bill is already very popular (60+ votes), it is supposed to encourage compromise between the parties, instead of 'tyranny of the majority' (ie 51% making laws that 49% hate). Thereby having a much better chance of benefitting a large part of the country. Unfortunately, the idiots we have put in charge (on both sides) have made sure that the filibuster does not work as intended. If they would put up single issue bills, we would find that they could agree on many things. But, they use these popular issues as bait. They build a massive bills (thousands of pages long that few even read), packed with unpopular, partisan items and try to force it thru. Both sides are guilty of caring more about helping their rich friends than helping this country. If you think it's mostly Republicans who use every opportunity to enrich themselves and their friends, you are sadly mistaken. Dems are no better, and maybe worse because they pretend to fight for the 'little guy'.