The way they passed Obamacare is apparently a way to end the fiibuster.

[Maraya1969]

This is a chart of how much the filibuster has been used in our history. No wonder we are still dinasaurs!




"A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.



The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.

In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

[Maraya1969]

1. A couple more ideas about how to weaken the filibuster.

What are some ways to modify the filibuster without eliminating it entirely?
The Senate could also move to weaken the filibuster without eliminating it entirely. A Senate majority could detonate a “mini-nuke” that bans filibusters on particular motions but otherwise leaves the 60-vote rule intact. For example, a Senate majority could prevent senators from filibustering the motion used to call up a bill to start (known as the motion to proceed). This would preserve senators’ rights to obstruct the bill or amendment at hand, but would eliminate the supermajority hurdle for starting debate on a legislative measure.

A second option targets the so-called Byrd Rule, a feature of the budget reconciliation process. These bills have been critical to the enactment of major policy changes including, recently, the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. To guard against a majority stuffing a reconciliation measure with non-budgetary provisions, the Byrd Rule limits the contents of the bill and requires 60 votes to set aside. Because the Senate’s non-partisan parliamentarian plays a significant role in advising whether provisions comply with the Byrd Rule, some senators have proposed diluting the power of the Byrd Rule by targeting the parliamentarian. This approach would weaken the filibuster by making it easier for a majority party to squeeze more of its priorities into a reconciliation bill (which then only requires a simple majority to pass). For instance, the majority party could select a parliamentarian who is more willing to advise weaker enforcement of the Byrd Rule, and, indeed, there is some history of the parliamentarian’s application of the Byrd Rule affecting his or her appointment. Alternatively, the senator presiding over the chamber (or the vice president, if he or she is performing that function) could disregard the advice provided to him or her by the parliamentarian, undercutting the efficacy of the Byrd Rule.

In addition, discussions among Democratic senators, led by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), have surfaced other ideas that aim to reduce the frequency of filibusters by making it more difficult for senators to use the tactic, including requiring senators who oppose a measure to be physically present in the chamber to prevent an end to debate.

[moose65]

2. Interesting ideas

The motion-to-proceed thing is ridiculous. Using that, the minority is able to stop even the debate on a bill. Crazy.

The majority party should have the right to bring up the bills that it wants to bring up. Maybe they could get around this by letting the minority party bring up a certain number of bills.

The other suggesting, making them actually be present in the chamber, is also something that needs to happen! In some ways they have made filibusters too easy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it takes 60 votes to begin debate and 60 to end it. Are those the only two times the filibuster can be used? Once they've voted to end debate, the actual passage of a bill is majority rule, right?

[Maraya1969]

3. I don't know. I'm not that knowledgeable about it but I do clearly understand

that if we don't figure out how to get rid of it or make it less disastrous we may end up losing the senate in 2 years and I can't stand the thought of that.

Adding new states will greatly help the Democrats maintain a majority in both houses. Also I don't know how much the GQP is going to fight the voting rights proposed new laws