Is the 60 vote closure rule in the Senate a good idea?

[Bonobo]

I had been reading up on the 60-vote cloture rule and trying to get my mind around its Constitutional implications, trying to understand how this happened and what it means for our
Demoocracy and our Constitution. It is a complex issue and involves the evolution of the way that the Senate deals with Fillibusters. But I think this is something we all need to educate ourselves about. Sorry for this poorly formatted and generally inadequate post. But I hope it encourages some people to begin looking into this and thinking about it as well. By the way, the word "Filibuster" itself is from the same word as "Freebooter" or Pirate, called that because they were using the tactic to "raid" the Senate of "booty" for their own gain.

Well, How Did We Get Here? The Rise of the 60-Vote Senate
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/08/well_how_did_we_get_here_the_r.html

There are basically 2 possible ways.
1.Old-School Method: Attrition. This is like forcing Senators to tire out and stop obstructing by making them stay in the Senate Chamber and keep obstructing. It basically stopped being used in 1960 after LBJ got beaten in an attempt to use this method. Since then, it has become less popular because Senators have busy schedules and don't really want to camp out in the chamber and would rather spend their long weekends elsewhere. Think "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and you got the basic picture.

2. Cloture: This is the currently used method and the rules were changed in 1975, I think, from 2/3 of those senators who cast a vote to 3/5 of ALL senators (basically, 60).

I came across this question/answer on Yahoo answers and found it very to the point and useful.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100124011606AAta2Bw

Is the 60 vote closure rule in the Senate a good idea?

ANSWER

The best you can say for the 60 vote cloture rule is that it allows you to prevent your opponents from passing almost anything when you are in the minority - which will make the majority look like pathetic, ineffectual whiners to the voters and almost certainly get your side more votes in the next election. And not because the people now like your ideas. They probably still hate them. But the other side's base will be demoralized and the squishy-middle voters hate incompetent losers more than they care about particular policies or parliamentary maneuvers.

This is the current strategy of the Republican Party, in which they are combining every delaying tactic they can to stop the Democrats from accomplishing things. Cloture motions now have to be filed even when there is no chance at all of stopping a bill from passing - on one bill this congress which Senate Republicans have claimed they intended to filibuster (and therefore required the Democrats to go through the whole cloture procedure, which takes quite a bit of time) there were 97 votes for cloture and only 1 against. The entire exercise was just trying to run out the clock a bit more.

This has been possible ever since a rule change in 1975 - nominally to make it easier to break filibusters by lowering the required number of votes - changed it from requiring that the filibustering party had to hold the floor in order to block progress (because the standard was 'present and voting', so if the filibuster supporters went home before its opponents, the filibuster was over), to requiring that the filibuster opponents come up with 3/5ths of the 'duly chosen and sworn' senators themselves.

We didn’t see an initial spike in filibuster threats after this rule change; they were already increasing by that time from about one per congress earlier in the century up to around 40ish, and they did drop slightly immediately after it. But then they began climbing again. In the last full congress, there were 139 cloture motions filed. Having realized the possibility of the above mentioned strategy, it is unlikely that we will ever see this number fall much below the level it was at during the late Clinton and early Bush administrations without changing the rules again, which was itself historically quite high.

[sandnsea]

1. On the original one person filibuster...

Did you happen to run across info on whether that is just another Senate rule too. The constitution says the senate makes their own rules, am I remembering that right?

There doesn't even have to be a filibuster, is that right?

All things considered though, I think I'd rather go back to the one person filibuster than have this mess. Democrats never managed to filibuster anything anyway.

[Bonobo]

2. As to the "one-person filibuster"

Rather than thinking of it as a rule, I think it is rather like a loophole.

Senators are allowed to speak as long as they want once they have been recognized. This is what allows for the one-person filibster you're referring to.

[sandnsea]

3. The Senate could keep the current debate limits

If they eliminated the 60 vote cloture rule. Then there wouldn't be any filibuster, right? There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a filibuster, that's what I'm asking.

[Bonobo]

4. I don't think that is correct.

There would still be a filibuster and other methods for obstructions such as "holds".

But you are right, of course, that there is no Constitutional requirement allowing for a filibuster, I believe.

[sandnsea]

5. They're making progress on those holds

I don't see how there could be a filibuster if they limited debate to an hour per Senator and did away with the 60 vote rule completely. What am I missing?