A Modest Change to the Filibuster - 60%, Not 60 Votes

Nov 28, 2010
76,034
29,472
113
Maryland
Instead of requiring 60 votes, how about requiring 60%?

The vote on setting up a 1/6 Commission failed 54-35. That's not 60 votes. But is is 60%.

Would it have passed if the 60% rule were in place? Doubtful. Either a couple of the Rs who voted for it would be strong-armed into changing their votes, or a couple of the Rs who didn't vote would have been dragged in to cast the deciding "no" votes.

Those who didn't vote are an interesting group. Do they think hiding makes them look less like traitors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mphawk

BeepBeepInMyJeep

HR Legend
Jun 28, 2010
10,784
3,778
113
Wouldn't have made a difference, the outcome was known before the vote, and so scheduled to purposefully show the final margin, even though there were 2 Democrats who would have voted yes. I think there's too much emphasis put on missed votes, when they're pretty much always pro-forma. The real work gets done in committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye
Nov 28, 2010
76,034
29,472
113
Maryland
Wouldn't have made a difference, the outcome was known before the vote, and so scheduled to purposefully show the final margin, even though there were 2 Democrats who would have voted yes. I think there's too much emphasis put on missed votes, when they're pretty much always pro-forma. The real work gets done in committee.
But would it help going forward if this was the new rule?

I don't know if it would. But at least people would show up for the votes.
 

Jan Itor

HR Legend
Jan 31, 2009
24,797
8,959
113
Instead of requiring 60 votes, how about requiring 60%?

The vote on setting up a 1/6 Commission failed 54-35. That's not 60 votes. But is is 60%.

Would it have passed if the 60% rule were in place? Doubtful. Either a couple of the Rs who voted for it would be strong-armed into changing their votes, or a couple of the Rs who didn't vote would have been dragged in to cast the deciding "no" votes.

Those who didn't vote are an interesting group. Do they think hiding makes them look less like traitors?

Who voted present?
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
63,290
42,739
113
I'm not sure where the love affair with the filibuster comes from...especially in it's current iteration. If it has to exist make it hurt...you have to hold the floor. You talk. And talk. And talk. Or you lose. Either get rid of this anti-democratic, non-constitutional crap where a single person can bring legislation to a halt with an email or bring back it's original usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u
Nov 28, 2010
76,034
29,472
113
Maryland
I'm not sure where the love affair with the filibuster comes from...especially in it's current iteration. If it has to exist make it hurt...you have to hold the floor. You talk. And talk. And talk. Or you lose. Either get rid of this anti-democratic, non-constitutional crap where a single person can bring legislation to a halt with an email or bring back it's original usage.
While I agree that if we are going to keep it, they should actually have to filibuster, I doubt that would make much difference. The "opponents" would just tag team it.

If we made it so that they had to actually address the subject, that would make it harder. Otherwise they might just read the newspaper or children's stories.

How about this...? You have to talk but any time you change "shifts" the "other side" gets a turn.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
63,290
42,739
113
While I agree that if we are going to keep it, they should actually have to filibuster, I doubt that would make much difference. The "opponents" would just tag team it.

If we made it so that they had to actually address the subject, that would make it harder. Otherwise they might just read the newspaper or children's stories.

How about this...? You have to talk but any time you change "shifts" the "other side" gets a turn.
I honestly think most people, seeing the business of the country grind to a halt while one side monopolizes the floor would turn people against the tactic. Force them to speak on topic - no reading of Green Eggs and Ham allowed - or relinquish the floor and the debate is closed.

The other change they made that makes the current "filibuster" an abomination is that they can continue with all other business while it continues. Under the new rules, nothing can occur while the filibuster continues.
 

sober_teacher

HR Heisman
Mar 26, 2007
9,867
11,109
113
Wouldn't have made a difference, the outcome was known before the vote, and so scheduled to purposefully show the final margin, even though there were 2 Democrats who would have voted yes. I think there's too much emphasis put on missed votes, when they're pretty much always pro-forma. The real work gets done in committee.
I disagree on this. We know Mitch was scrambling around asking for favors from his fellow Republicans. That says to me that he knew the votes were there to pass the bill. For my money, his “favor” was to ask them to not show up for the vote.

I don’t think that at minimum it’s unreasonable to say that they should at least have to be physically present and voting to enforce a filibuster. Make them put their money where their mouth is. If they don’t vote, they don’t get to sustain a filibuster merely by existing.
 

RNHawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
9,961
3,088
113
Is the left going to be ok with getting rid of Obamacare, and outlawing abortion?
 

BeepBeepInMyJeep

HR Legend
Jun 28, 2010
10,784
3,778
113
Is the left going to be ok with getting rid of Obamacare, and outlawing abortion?

They failed to get rid of Obamacare with reconciliation in 2017. Fully outlawing abortion on the federal level wouldn't get enough support in the Senate anyway.
 

RNHawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
9,961
3,088
113
They failed to get rid of Obamacare with reconciliation in 2017. Fully outlawing abortion on the federal level wouldn't get enough support in the Senate anyway.
if we don't have a filibuster it would obviously only take 51 votes. Are you willing to take that chance? On the other side what if they just tried to severely restrict abortions, i.e no abortions after 10 weeks?
 
Nov 28, 2010
76,034
29,472
113
Maryland
Is the left going to be ok with getting rid of Obamacare, and outlawing abortion?
OK with allowing the majority to prevail? Yes. Of course.

OK with those particular actions? Of course not. But if that represents the majority will, I'll live with it for now, and work to overturn those votes in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

RNHawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
9,961
3,088
113
OK with allowing the majority to prevail? Yes. Of course.

OK with those particular actions? Of course not. But if that represents the majority will, I'll live with it for now, and work to overturn those votes in the future.
If the abortion bill would pass, I don't see it changing for the next 50-100 years. I believe the Supreme Court would uphold it and then you would have the timely task of overturning the Supreme Court
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

RNHawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
9,961
3,088
113
OK with allowing the majority to prevail? Yes. Of course.

OK with those particular actions? Of course not. But if that represents the majority will, I'll live with it for now, and work to overturn those votes in the future.
Also you say that, just like the left said it was ok back when Reid got rid of the filibuster. Here we are today and the left is losing its collective mind over the status of the Supreme Court
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
63,290
42,739
113
if we don't have a filibuster it would obviously only take 51 votes. Are you willing to take that chance? On the other side what if they just tried to severely restrict abortions, i.e no abortions after 10 weeks?
I'll take that chance. Let the GQP outlaw abortion and throw millions off their health care plan without ANY F"N PLAN to take it's place. They better be ready to steal a whole lot of elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

sober_teacher

HR Heisman
Mar 26, 2007
9,867
11,109
113
Wouldn't have made a difference, the outcome was known before the vote, and so scheduled to purposefully show the final margin, even though there were 2 Democrats who would have voted yes. I think there's too much emphasis put on missed votes, when they're pretty much always pro-forma. The real work gets done in committee.
I disagree on this. We know Mitch was scrambling around asking for favors from his fellow Republicans. That says to me that he knew the votes were there to pass the bill. For my money, his “favor” was to ask them to not show up for the vote.

I don’t think that at minimum it’s unreasonable to say that they should at least have to show up and vote, or else not be counted towards that 60% threshold.