A new site, Filibusted.us, sheds some new light into the filibustering process in the Senate. Actually it’s not filibustering so much as group action to obstruct progress. Filibusted.us was the well-deserved winner of Sunlight Foundation’s Apps for America contest and draws data from GovTrack.us to show which Members of Congress are obstructing progress. I’m going to take this opportunity to talk about the state of the filibuster and cloture vote, below the fold. [Update: Fixed link.]
Beyond the Sea movie full Filibusted.us is, no doubt about it, a very good site that helps shed light on how the filibuster and cloture vote are playing out in the Senate. Except, this is a very complicated topic:
The filibuster is the unique parliamentary rule in the Senate where a Senator can hold up debate in a dire case by holding the floor, unless a 2/3rds majority votes in favor of “cloture” to cut off debate. As it happens, no one ever fillibusters these days as in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but the cloture vote is still very common. Now I don’t think a strict reading of the parliamentary procedure really captures what’s happening, but here it is first: When debate is wrapping up on a bill, the Senate moves to end debate so they can start a vote. The final vote only takes a simple majority (1/2) to pass the bill, but cloture requires 2/3rds. Opponents of the bill can raise the bar on passage of the bill by forcing a cloture vote. If cloture fails, debate continues — indefinitely postponing an actual vote. It’s easier to defeat cloture than to defeat a final vote, so opponents vote against cloture to prevent a simple majority vote, even though no single opponent may be intending to filibuster. This is an important distinction from the filibuster. No one actually wants to filibuster in any sense. The opponents that are voting no aren’t standing in solidarity with a colleague willing to put his head on the chopping block by filibustering. They simply don’t want the bill to pass. Essentially it is like gaming the system. The Senators that invented Waiting… download the cloture vote meant it to stop a filibuster (I assume), but Senators realized that they can use it to prevent a bill from passing. When someone votes against cloture when no one is actually filibustering, they’re taking advantage of a flaw in the system.
download Sliver dvd That’s the strict reading of what is going on. I don’t think that’s the fairest explanation. Rather, I would say that the cloture vote has become a part of the standing conventions
????? ???????? ????? ???????? ????
American Outlaws full ????? ?????? of the Senate to pass a bill. What I mean is, probably no one thinks of it as gaming the system anymore. Instead, the cloture vote has taken the place of the final vote as the meaningful vote when passing a bill. Bills actually require a 2/3rds majority to pass now, period. When someone votes against cloture, it’s not necessarily a sinister act of gaming the system nor is it that they are necessarily trying to obstruct progress. It’s just how things work- if you oppose the bill, you vote against it (at cloture), and that’s the end of the story.
What’s Eating Gilbert Grape trailer Not everyone who opposes a bill votes against cloture, though, so to some it must still feel The 40 Year Old Virgin ipod
like gaming the system. These folks allow an up-or-down vote knowing that they are going to lose and the bill will pass. They give up their opportunity to kill a bill, knowing that the intention of Senate rules was to use a simple majority. These folks are noble, but perhaps misguided about what a cloture vote means now.
I don’t think it’s such a big deal if the Senate actually requires a 2/3rds majority. Lots of people seem to think that a simple majority vote is always the most fair/ethical/moral way to decide something (one person one vote), but I think this view is greatly mistaken. But this is a fair question to ask: should the Senate vote on bills by simple majority or 2/3rds? Senators are likely to waver depending on whether they are in the majority or minority party at any given time, and this is unfortunate.
Cutthroat Island If the Senate thinks a 2/3rds majority is a fine way to decide on bills, then that’s fine. We should just be transparent and honest about the process. Let’s get rid of the cloture vote, which is highly confusing for the American public, and change the fiinal vote to require a 2/3rds majority. But if Senators think a simple majority is appropriate, then the filibustering and cloture process ought to be revised so that it can’t be gamed by a bill’s opponents so easily.
1 comment so far...
A minor typo: cloture only requires 3/5ths of the Senators to pass. The sense of your argument is the same.
But you miss something bigger: Senate procedure is rife with opportunities to stall a bill. All of these are considered “filibustering” — and not just standing on the floor blabbing away about a favorite cake recipe.
Any single Senator can take advantage of procedure to stall a bill. But only if they are so determined. The price paid for stalling a bill is a political one. Sometimes it’s a small price if the bill is unpopular; sometimes it’s a huge price if the bill is popular. But either way, a determined, single Senator can stop just about anything. It’s been that way since the very beginning.
The Senate generally operates on unanimous consent. If every Senator doesn’t agree, things can grind to a halt. It is very different from the House where majority rules.
Add your Comment!