Should the fillibuster be eliminated in the US Senate?

[ColinC]

21 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	19 (90%)
	No. There should be no changes made to the fillibuster.
	1 (5%)
	Only for voting rights
	0 (0%)
	Reformed, not eliminated.
	1 (5%)
	Other(state below)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[msongs]

1. are we good with a republican majority and no filibuster constraint on them? nt

[ColinC]

2. Yes.

Especially if getting rid of the filibuster substantially reduces the probability of the extremist wing of the republican party taking control in such a majority. As of now, the GOP defers itself entirely into the MAGA white nationalist cult because they have decided that in doing so, they will hold onto power by keeping minorities from being able to vote entirely. Getting rid of the filibuster isn't just giving Dems the power to pass legislation, but also neutralizing the threat of extremism within the republican party. A threat that is lessened by their being forced to appeal to a broader electorate or lose power indefinitely. At this point, there is no stopping the republicans from eliminating the filibuster when they take power anyways, but we can reduce their damage by beating them to it.

[msongs]

3. good answer. thanks for that nt

[ColinC]

4. Anytime!

[lagomorph777]

5. Are we good with a permanent Republican takeover of the country?

The filibuster is one of the weapons they are using to make that possible.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. You have to be incredibly naive to assume they won't eliminate it

they already did for judicial nominees (remember the "nuclear option"?)

[jimfields33]

13. They actually didn't

Only Supreme Court after senator Reid got rid of it for the vast majority of judges.

[LanternWaste]

14. You realize the difference between the concepts of...

the Practical Effect versus the Intended Effect, yes?

[jimfields33]

15. No.

[treestar]

16. they don't want to pass laws though

they could not hold up a Democratic majority.

When they have a majority, there's not much they'd want that could not be undone later. And they know they can't, or they'd have done it during the Dubya/Dump administrations.

Then much of what they want would be unconstitutional, even to the Court they have.

[0rganism]

6. I'd like to see a reduction in requirements for each cloture vote on a bill

First time cloture comes to the floor, cloture can still take 60 votes, and filibuster can persist as long as it's promoting live debate. No more silent filibusters and anonymous holds.
Second time, 55 votes.
Third time, 50.

[ColinC]

7. I prefer eliminating the fillibuster, but

Would be happy with any kind of practical alternative to it, including your suggestion. Unfortunately it seems at this point any changes are a pipedream despite the vast majority of democratic voters being behind either eliminating or reforming the fillibuster.

[madville]

8. Depends who has the majority

If Democrats are in control, get rid of it. When Republicans are in control again, we'll wish we had it.

[ColinC]

9. If these Republicans ever get control we will wish we got rid of it.

These extremist white nationalists now control the party with no fear of accountability because they will simply effectively get rid of their elections. There is no no stopping them from eliminating the filibuster when they get into power, but we can prevent the type of party that gets into power by neutralizing the threat of extremism through passing voting rights immediately. If republicans have to appeal to a broader electorate, they will no longer be sucking the teet of fascism. If we fail this task, however, we will be at their mercy.

[treestar]

17. Next time we had it, we could repeal things

that were really bad.

But if they really want to eliminate Social Security, for example, they had chances to do it and did not dare. They could not repeal the ACA. After putting on a show, they could not get 60, IIRR. But if their vote was really going to do it, they might not have tried.

They'd cut taxes, but it would only last while they had Congress and the Presidency. The voters might never let them have all 3, knowing what they could do.

But mostly they don't want anything to pass. It's the Democrats that the filibuster frustrates, not them.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. Yes; I don't know why this is even a question?

The only reason the filibuster was invented in the first place was to block anti-slavery legislation. The word "filibuster" in the 1850s referred to various groups of adventurers who wanted to take over Cuba or someplace in South America to add a new slave state to the Union.

[ColinC]

12. +10,000