• Filibuster → delaying vote on a bill a bill can go to vote in the Senate if a supermajority (60 senators) agree to close debate (in cloture vote)
  • Hypothetically protects from tyranny of the majority
  • Keeps moderates in majority party from making difficult votes a lot, bc only bills with bipartisan support are voted on
  • Fear that if it is abolished, other party will be able to do a bunch of stuff if/when they get power
  • Has fundamentally broken the modern Senate, vast increase in cloture votes, legislative paralysis

Argument 1: The Senate is the cooling saucer of democracy

• US is unique among democracies in number of ways to stop things from getting done: checks can come from the House, Senate, president, Supreme Court; extremely difficult for one party to build a majority (requires multiple election cycles) — all this even without 60-vote requirement
• Most countries still just have one electoral body with veto power (a few have two or three, only US has four)
• Leads to situations where president has to use executive action to pass legislation that has majority support (ex. DACA with 59 Senate votes)

Argument 2: The filibuster protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority

• Ironic bc historically filibuster used for the opposite— to protect the majority vs minority, to preserve racial segregation, hierarchy in the South
• White people have most representation in Senate compared to other groups (0.35 senators per million people), then Black and Asian Americans (around 0.25), then Hispanics (0.19)
• Filibuster is primary obstacle to DC and PR getting statehood (DC bigger than some states, PR even more so)
  • Also has prevented other voting rights legislation

Argument 3: But the filibuster has stopped things I don't like from happening, too

• Truth is, legislators would rather sabotage opponents' ability to keep promises than uphold their own
• Comes down to: "Should we prefer a system in which parties can, occasionally, govern, or a system in which they can't?"
• Intended feedback loop of democracy is broken by gerrymandering, Electoral College, etc. along with filibuster— voters don't get close to even part of the legislative agenda they vote for
• Getting rid of filibuster → more accountability to senators, who currently can make lots of unrealistic promises to voters then blame other party for not passing it

Argument 4: The filibuster ensures debate

• Simply a lie— most negotiation happens behind closed doors
• Mechanism of parties to oppose passage of legislation, not to encourage debate

Argument 5: The filibuster encourages compromise

• Jonathan Chait: "Look around you." More partisan gridlock than ever
• Half right, though— Obama-era Democrats eager to get anything done... but McConnell realized compromise only helps the reputation of the majority
  • "Bipartisan cooperation is often necessary for governance but electorally irrational for the minority party to offer."

Argument 6: But what about budget reconciliation?

• Reason why Republicans keep passing tax cuts with 10 year expiration
• Leads to both parties favoring tax-and-spend solutions over regulation, even if that's a better fit
• Warps focus to certain subset of issues

Argument 7: The Senate tilts Republican, and so will eliminating the filibuster

• Because Senate → overrepresentation of low population states, which often lean Republican

Argument 8: It's better for nothing to happen when the country is this polarized

1. Current problems are simply to big for inaction to be safe or moral
2. Only an American POV that legislating is "offensive,"— in other countries, minority party is expected to criticize majority, not compromise with it
3. Simply wrong— leaves us trapped in phase of partisan conflict when legislation is least popular (see ACA, which is now viewed relatively positively)

Argument 9: The problem isn't the filibuster, it's how it's used

• Many ways to reform filibuster to protect debate:
  • "Ratchet" so that in each cloture vote the majority needed decreases by 3, guaranteeing at least 8 days of debate