Democrats have the majority. We elected them to govern. So what's the point of the filibuster?

[DTomlinson]

I was under the impression that in a representative democracy, whoever has the majority governs - and if people don't like what the majority has passed, they can vote them out.

But if the majority can't pass hardly anything to begin with because they need a super-majority in the Senate(60 votes, in this case), well, how can voters possibly judge the government they elected fairly? The majority can't defend their record, because there's no record to defend, owing to the 60 vote threshold.

And Mitch McConnell, or whoever else leads the minority party (Republicans), has every incentive to obstruct Democrats - it's what Republican voters want, it's what Republican donors want, and the filibuster allows and incentivizes the Republican minority to sabotage the Democratic agenda in a way that makes it look like, to a lot of Americans who don't pay as much attention, that the Democrats (both Biden and Democrats in Congress) are to blame for the government not being able to work. After all, few people would instinctively blame the party in the minority for things not getting done.

Republicans then capitalize on disaffection among Democratic voters, lower turnout in the midterms - boom, Republicans control Congress again. And they get to this place only by doing nothing, by voting No - no bipartisanship, or at least not enough to peel off 10 Republican Senators.

Does any other democracy have something like the filibuster? It seems like madness to me. Yes, I read that book Kill Switch - the author worked for Harry Reid, so he knows firsthand how things got to where they are in the Senate.

[Karadeniz]

1. The founders didn't create a democracy and we're trying to make up for it! So far, senators being

Appointed by governors has been changed. You don't have to be a landowner to vote. Women can vote. All races can vote. Electoral college members can't vote for whomever they personally want to.

But, as you show, still lots of work to do!!!

[VMA131Marine]

2. They should change the filibuster so that cloture requires

the votes of senators who represent 60% of the population, not 60% of the Senate.

[Salviati]

3. I think the onus needs to be put on those who want to filibuster, not those who want to do work.

Either requiring 40 votes to maintain the filibuster, not 60 to break it, or ending the two track system and returning to the talking filibuster.

The two track system was developed so that filibustering wouldn't prevent the Senate from doing other work, but now that everything is being filibustered, there's no other work getting done anyway.

[DTomlinson]

5. "I think the onus needs to be put on those who want to filibuster, not those who want to do work" +1

Yes. I agree.

[VMA131Marine]

8. I generally agree

Requiring 40 votes to keep the filibuster would mean that the side that wants to filibuster would have to keep 40 senators in the chamber at all times.

[dsc]

4. there are a few

the EU requires unanimity for certain decisions. California requires supermajorities for tax increases which Democrats have rendered moot by winning a supermajority. But even then the Senate is the only such body I know which requires supermajorities for literally everything. And yes, you are quite right, democracy is impossible with this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. The purpose is to obstruct progress and provide a shield from accountability. Nt

[Tree Lady]

7. They at least should change rule that if someone calls

For bill to be read aloud all 100 senators must be present, no computers, ipads, phones out either. No papers nothing they must pay full attention.

That would stop it because senators would get pissed at anyone causing them to have to endure 10 hours of it. No extra food or drinks brought in either, maybe a 10 min potty break every 3 hours.

Right now both sides has these ridiculous rules for game playing.