Would killing the filibuster allow for bipartisanship finally?

[Recursion]

I think it would.

Right now both caucuses have to be extraordinarily disciplined (never an easy thing for the Senate) because 1 vote either way can support or remove a filibuster. So, an Olympia Snowe or a Ben Nelson are told that their identity as Republicans or Democrats is entirely dependent on making every vote stick with the party line.

But let's say a rules reform is made that allows a "countdown" filibuster, or even kills the procedure entirely. The party leadership's leverage over a Nelson or a Snowe gets a lot weaker: they are no longer responsible for making or breaking a bill, since the majority party will pretty much get its way.

Now, I know that sounds a lot like a recipe for the majority to trample the minority but I doubt that would happen; the Senate is still a collegial body (more or less). And if Snowe were in a position that she could vote for a bill, a lot of Democrats would be willing to make some concessions so that she would.

Let's say there were no filibuster, and everybody knew that ultimately what the Democratic caucus supported would pass. Suppose Reid had then thrown in some tort reform. Could that have tempted Snowe, McCain, or anybody else over the line to support a bill they knew would pass anyways?

[OHdem10]

1. It would mean some things could get done. BiPartsanship is

another matter. The GOP believes Conservatism is the only
way truth and light. Therefore, they cannot compromise. It
is against the "principles."

How can there be compromise when one side says it is my way or
the highway. You cannot expect Democrats to lay down and roll over
just passing GOP Policies.

Without the fillibuster, the Democrats could at least pass something.

Bipartisanship is over rated.

[arthritisR_US]

2. getting rid of the filibuster will bite them in the ass when they

become the minority party some day.

[T Wolf]

3. Problem with this is that the Democrats would (and do) bargain away principles and

values for votes. The pukes do not.

As has been said too many times, you cannot enter into honest negotiations with an opponent/enemy that is not honest.

That being said, I would love to see the filibuster eliminated. If the Dems ever get a real majority, they might be able to institute policies that do some good.

Along the same lines, the Senate needs to disappear, if only because of the over-representation/tyranny of the little states with far fewer people than larger ones. Wyoming is equal to New York or California in power - what idiot thought that up? Actually, we know the reason - to preserve slavery and the other values of less-civilized areas.

[Better Believe It]

4. What filibusters? The "procedural" pretend filibusters?