Should we reform the cloture vote, and if so, how?

[TheWraith]

Poll question: Should we reform the cloture vote, and if so, how?

We all know the gratuitous use the Republicans have made of the cloture rules this past Congress, using the 60 vote threshold to cut off debate in order to roadblock any and all activity they can get away with stopping. This has resulted in some people--even within the Senate--advocating that we should rewrite the rules to eliminate this standard.

We also know, or we should know, that the next time the Republicans control the Senate--and they will eventually, whether it takes 4 years or 14--that they would use the absence of a filibuster threat to run roughshod over any and all opposition, exploiting even the smallest majority to run things their way and their way alone, with no concessions needed to the Democrats.

So what, pray tell, should we do? There are good, solid arguments on both counts, as well as for a number of other possibilities: like eliminating the filibuster only for legislative votes, not for confirmations. Or keeping cloture at a lower threshold, say 55 votes. I'd like to hear a reasonable, well thought out discussion on the matter, and see what DU thinks.

I hesitate to throw my two cents in before the discussion has a chance to get going, but my personal feeling is that cloture should be eliminated, at least for legislative issues if nothing else. We already know the Reps have a far easier time using it than we do due to their party loyalty; even though it benefits us sometimes, it disproportionately benefits them.

Poll result (16 votes)
We should keep cloture as is, it's an important tool to increase the power of the Senate minority.	(4 votes, 25%)	Vote
We should keep cloture as is, because rewriting the legislative rules to benefit us creates a really bad precedent that the Republicans will exploit.	(1 votes, 6%)	Vote
We should reform cloture to some lower threshold, like requiring 55 votes instead of 60.	(3 votes, 19%)	Vote
We should eliminate cloture for legislative votes, but keep it in place for Senate confirmations.	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
We should eliminate cloture entirely, making 51 votes the maximum threshold for any vote or confirmation.	(8 votes, 50%)	Vote

[hughee99]

1. For the second option, didn't we already do this?

If I recall, back in the late 70's (maybe around '77) the cloture rules required 67 votes. At the time, there were 60 Dems in the Senate. Then, the rules were changed to (conveniently) require just 60 votes. Hasn't this precedent already been set?

[Goblinmonger]

3. It was reduced to 3/5s

but that was of the total Senate. The 2/3s requirement was of those voting (or present) or something so that you could have 2/3 but not need to have 60.

[Kennah]

7. Anyone for 6/11?

[Goblinmonger]

2. You forgot the easiest solution--make them actually filibuster.

You only need cloture when there is a filibuster. Now we let them get away with "well, we'll filibuster that" and don't make them do it. You want to filibuster? Knock yourself out.

[TheWraith]

5. That's not the way that it works.

Constant talking has not been required to sustain a filibuster for almost a hundred years. That's why I refer to it as cloture, because the popular idea of a filibuster is grossly inaccurate--cloture was invented, in fact, to get RID of the "constant talking" kind of filibuster.

[Goblinmonger]

14. I don't believe so

A cloture vote in parliamentary procedure is a way to get a quick vote and limit debate. That is what it is in the Senate. If it hasn't been required for 100 years, why did Thurman hold the record? He's not THAT old.

If the minority wants to stall a vote, then majority can make them filibuster. No rules need to be changed.

[TheWraith]

17. Yes, so, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding.

Thurmond got away with what he did because the Senate didn't have the votes to invoke cloture while he was holding his little one man rant. Those were the days when the cloture threshold was 67 votes, not 60.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Thurman WANTED to talk.

He didn't have to.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Take the vote to end debate a billion times.

They have to "notice" the lack of a quorum and nothing else gets done. Make the Republicans stall the Senate. Don't let them just threaten it, i.e. make them filibuster.

[47of74]

6. Duplicate - delete

[47of74]

11. Also limit the number of filibusters each Senator can start per Congress

If you limit them to one or two you'll see them keeping their powder dry for important stuff rather than filibustering everything. And make them actually filibuster. Read names out of the phone book. None of this pretend crap they have going on now.

[HopeHoops]

27. The caps on how many don't really solve the problem. The opposition can simply keep re-introducing.

It gets really complicated from there. I say just dump the entire concept and make Senators actually VOTE on bills so their vote is on the record one way or the other.

[Kennah]

4. Option 6

We need cloture, but it must be reformed. I'm not sure I agree with any of the suggestions, and as such the matter needs to be further debated and discussed.

[HopeHoops]

8. The Senate was NEVER intended to require other than a simple majority EXCEPT for...

... clearly defined instances such as Amendments to the Constitution. When was the last time one of those GOP assholes actually got up and talked to hold up the vote? Bernie Sanders held the last filibuster in who the hell knows how long. All the GOP has to do is threaten it and the bill is dead. They don't even bother with cloture votes on a lot of the bills. The Constitution is clear on the matter and the intentions are well documented elsewhere in the writings of the architects. The whole filibuster thing undermines the effectiveness and integrity of the chamber. It cuts both ways, too. We're in the majority and will still be come January, but the GOP has been blocking everything just by whining. I'd rather see it go away than have the GOP spin things for 2012 as "the 'Democrat' party blocked everything".

[TheWraith]

12. Talking has nothing to do with it. The cloture vote was introduced to PREVENT people from talking.

I get really tired of this myth that what the Republicans are doing is just the "threat" of a filibuster, and that somehow we can make them stand up and talk. That's simply false.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Post the Senate rules then

that say what you are saying. The change in the cloture vote was to make it harder to filibuster, not to get rid of it.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Hint for you: It's Rule XXII n/t

[onenote]

18. hate to break it to you, but what Bernie did wasn't a filibuster

Can't filibuster a bill that isn't on the floor for debate

[HopeHoops]

26. I know - "Berniebuster" has been floated. But it was still the closest we've had in forever.

[ashling]

9. Sen. Harkin has been trying to do away with the filibuster

Amy Klobachzr (sp?) was talking about this the other day as well. When the Senate comes in in January they have a chance to change the rules.

[notadmblnd]

10. The Senate can change it on the first day of the new congress

It can be changed according to Rachael Maddow with some rule on the first day of the new congress only. If they don't take the opportunity to change it on the first day, then I guess we are to assume there will be at least two more years with nothing getting done there.

[damntexdem]

13. None of the above: we should limit its duration.

Require 60 votes to invoke cloture on the first try. If it fails, lower the threshold over several days, until only 51 votes are required. However, require once again that a filibuster be a filibuster, with opponents speaking for the full time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. That really defeats the whole point.

I have no idea what purpose that would really serve. Might as well just eliminate it if the end result is going to be the same.

[TheWraith]

25. Right, it would just be another delaying tactic.

The Senate is full of those already.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I like the idea of lowering it to 55 votes.

60 seems unrealistic in this day and age. I think there absolutely needs to be a way to stop a tyranny of the majority, but it cannot be abused to create a tyranny of the minority. I think this is a good way to ensure that a narrowly divided country has some way to reign in power, but one that has overwhelmingly voted in favor of one party should be able to get the legislation they demanded.

[Tx4obama]

22. The links below explain in detail what the dems trying to do regarding filibuster reform

November 11 - Dems Vow To Push Filibuster Reform
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/democrats-fili...

December 16 - Tom Harkin: 'Fireworks' And Shot At Filibuster Reform Coming Jan. 5
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/tom-harkin-fil...

December 17 - Bipartisan Support Building Around Three Changes To Senate Rules In New Congress
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/changes-senate...

Excerpt from the December 17the link above:

"This is a two-step process," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the leaders of the effort, told The Huffington Post in an interview after the caucus meeting. "The first step is that we need to recognize that under the Constitution, we can...adopt rules with 51 votes and also cut off debate on rules that we want to adopt with 51 votes. ... The second step is building the consensus with 51 senators on what they want to actually be in the rules. ... And that's the tough business we're in right now."

According to Udall, bipartisan support is beginning to build around three proposals: 1) No longer allowing senators to filibuster the motion to proceed and instead allow a set amount of time for debate, 2) ending secret holds, and 3) stopping filibustering senators from hiding behind quorum calls and forcing them to speak up if they're blocking a bill.

[Better Believe It]

28. Senate Dems can easily halt Republican "procedural filibusters" Just stop the "dual-track" practice!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. The Senate is changing in January

If only 21 votes are needed to pass a bill, Republican will only need 8 Democrats to move legislation. That, combined with a GOP-controlled House, makes this a questionable proposition.