Should the Senate Reform the Filibuster?

The filibuster has long been a contentious topic in American politics. There has been a tendency for political parties that have a minority number of seats in the Senate to see it as an important defensive tool. At the same time, majority parties have tended to see it as a powerful obstruction to the will of the people. The debate has once again emerged as Congress considers raising the debt ceiling.  

 Those who support reforming the filibuster contend that it is a violation of the principles of democracy. They claim that in its current form it allows the minority party to stop any and all legislation that it does not support, and therefore prevents a duly elected majority from carrying out the will of Americans. Additionally, they may argue that no other part of our government requires a super-majority to pass or sign a law, so the Senate should be no different. 

 Those who oppose reforming the filibuster contend that the procedure is an important tool in a bi-partisan form of government. They argue that requiring a super-majority (in this case 60%) agree to move forward with a vote on a law helps build moderation and consensus because members of the ruling party will need to consider the interests of the minority party. Additionally, they may argue that the fact that other parts of government don’t require a super-majority to sign or pass a law makes it even more important for it to continue existing in order to protect minority rights. 

 So, what do you think? Should the Senate Reform the Filibuster? Students may answer Yes, it should; No, it should not; or a nuanced answer in-between!  

 Note: Ideal Think the Vote responses include the following: 

-Address the question asked in a thoughtful and meaningful manner 

-Use cited facts and constitutional arguments when appropriate to support their answers 

-Are expressed in cohesive sentences and are free of distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors 

-They address counter-arguments and opposing concerns in a respectful manner 

-They organize their answer in a manner that flows logically and reads clearly 

Current Standings:
Yes: 64%
No: 36%
  • Stryder from Missouri

    The filibuster defies logic for a democracy. It lets the minority disallow anything they don’t support.

    2
  • Ryley from Missouri

    Yes, I think it’s an abuse of power. All decisions should be brought up and talked about not just pushed to the side, and delayed.

    1
  • Justus from Missouri

    Yes, the filibuster should be reformed. It gives smaller groups that have a lot of power already, more power. Which in the grand scheme of things isn’t fair in the slightest. Delaying anything that could change so much for the citizens of not only the country but even the county and state. If it is used to delay it for the purpose of making sure it doesn’t pass, that in my own personal opinion is unacceptable. Everything should be voted on and must be carried out through that process in a timely manner. If the(congress or senate) decides to get rid of it or veto it then that would be better than passing a filibuster.

    [read less]

    Yes, the filibuster should be reformed. It gives smaller groups that have a lot of power already, more power. Which in the grand scheme of things is…

    [read more]
    1
  • Mia from Missouri

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed. It gives the minority too much power and defeats the purpose of a democracy. There is no point in having a democracy if he minority can simply not approve of something because they do not agree with it. I feel like this is unfair and gives more advantage to the minority.

    [read less]

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed. It gives the minority too much power and defeats the purpose of a democracy. There is no point in ha…

    [read more]
    1
  • Trenton from Alabama

    I said yes because it is abused because they will start talking about something that is irrelevant to the topic .

    1
  • emilia from Missouri

    I believe people are gonna fight for what they want and wasting time is the best way to do so. it shows how bad you actually want what you’re fight for.

    1
    • Jared from Missouri

      I agree because the more time you put into something to fight for shows how much you care to make the change and fight for it.

      0
  • Zack from Missouri

    Yes because the power is being abused and there are certain descisions that need to be made now and not put away for later

    1
  • Makayla from Missouri

    The filibuster is often times abused by the government to force their way by claiming minority like a spoiled child who always gets everything they want if they complain enough

    1
  • Malena from Missouri

    I think the filibuster should be reformed since it is only stalling a decision from being made. Both sides are argued before the point of the need for the minority side to use a filibuster. It will not change the decision already made by stalling the final decision.

    [read less]

    I think the filibuster should be reformed since it is only stalling a decision from being made. Both sides are argued before the point of the need for…

    [read more]
    1
  • ELiott from Missouri

    The filibuster abuses the logical fouls in the constitution therefore it should be reformed or just completely thrown out.

    1
  • Angel from Missouri

    The Senate should get rid of the filibuster because it is abused and holds up the progress on bills.

    1
  • aiden from Missouri

    i think that it should not be allowed to be used in debates

    1
  • gracelyn from Missouri

    it allows for the minority to get a chance to get what they are fighting for. it keeps us out of a democracy and makes compromises easier and more thought out

    1
  • Brett from Missouri

    Because it gives to much power that they can use to get rid of any legislature.

    1
  • lilly from Missouri

    it gives them time to think more about what they are going to do and find a better plan if they don’t like the one they have now. there should be a time limit on it though hih would be the only thing I would change about it.

    [read less]

    it gives them time to think more about what they are going to do and find a better plan if they don’t like the one they have now. there should be a ti…

    [read more]
    1
  • avery from Missouri

    I think that the filibuster goes against our democracy beliefs. Instead of the majority automatically getting the rule, the filibuster allows for stalling the bill.

    1
  • Dallas from Missouri

    I think that the filibuster goes against democracy. It isn’t fair for someone to kill time just because they disagree on something.

    1
  • christian from Missouri

    well i think that they should take it away because then they would have a lot more time to deal with other things instead of listing to someone waste time.

    1
  • Parker from Missouri

    The filibuster lets the minority have the same voice as the majority, giving the minority more voting power even though less people support it.

    1
  • Hayden from Missouri

    The filibuster is a waste of time, it is a way for the minority to just fill up more time to sway some more people. They are already the same so why should this thing be a thing

    1
  • Cayden from Missouri

    I belive the Filibuster should be changed and reformed because it was abused in the past and benefits the minority more than anyone else.

    1
  • Nyrah from Missouri

    It is a violation of the principles of democracy. It allows the minority party to stop any and all legislation that it doesn’t support. No other part of the government requires a super majority to pass or sign a law, so the Senate should be no different.

    [read less]

    It is a violation of the principles of democracy. It allows the minority party to stop any and all legislation that it doesn’t support. No other part …

    [read more]
    1
  • chase from Missouri

    i think it should be made where both the minority party and majority party have the same amount of power.

    1
  • Danika from Missouri

    I think we should reform it, because it goes against the the formal procedures of a legistative gathering. Decisions should be made by the majority vote, not the minority.

    1
  • Aubrey from Missouri

    I believe that filibusters should be reformed because it is a waste of everyone’s time. It allows the minority to put a hold on things they don’t like which causes a drawn out election. I also believe that people won’t be swayed to the others side once they have made up their minds about certain topics.

    [read less]

    I believe that filibusters should be reformed because it is a waste of everyone’s time. It allows the minority to put a hold on things they don’t like…

    [read more]
    1
  • Emma from Missouri

    The filibuster is a waste of time in my opinion. The majority of people have already made their decision about whatever is being discussed and someone that is taking up time more than likely is not gonna change it. It also is pointless because someone is being paid to take up time, it isn’t even the person that wants it changed.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is a waste of time in my opinion. The majority of people have already made their decision about whatever is being discussed and someone…

    [read more]
    1
  • Peyton from Missouri

    The point of the filibuster is to try and get your point across and take as much time as needed, but people definitely use this advantage to take up time by spouting nonsense and random things. People abuse the power.

    [read less]

    The point of the filibuster is to try and get your point across and take as much time as needed, but people definitely use this advantage to take up t…

    [read more]
    1
  • Leigha from Missouri

    YES I am in support of changing it because I think it is a nuisance to politics.

    1
  • Jolee from Missouri

    Yes, because I believe we the minority should be able to disallow anything that don’t support.

    1
  • Carter from Missouri

    I say yes because it is breaking the principles of the democracy and it allows minority party to stop any and all legislation that it doesn’t support

    1
  • Thor from Missouri

    On paper, the filibuster could be helpful for furthering discussion of a law. In reality, it’s clearly abused as it’s often used for completely unrelated subjects. As such I believe it should be removed.

    [read less]

    On paper, the filibuster could be helpful for furthering discussion of a law. In reality, it’s clearly abused as it’s often used for completely unrela…

    [read more]
    1
  • Aiden from Missouri

    The filibuster must be reformed because of the problums it had of the past that has been abused to prevent legislation from being passed that would help American people. While the filibuster was made to promote compromise between disagreeing parties, it cannot help if the opposing side talk or say what they want to say.

    [read less]

    The filibuster must be reformed because of the problums it had of the past that has been abused to prevent legislation from being passed that would he…

    [read more]
    1
  • Luke from Missouri

    in my opinion, yes it should because i feel the power is being abused by those who withhold it, decisions need to be made and not put to the side for later.

    1
  • Trinity from Missouri

    I think that we should have a filibuster because it gives people a chance to fight in what they believe in and to have a little more say in some of the laws that are being passed.

    1
  • claire from Missouri

    it makes a more compelling argument. taking away the filibuster is a good idea because it gives more time to the people that are trying to make a point in congress.

    1
  • Maggie from Missouri

    The filibuster is a waste of time.It’s a way for the minority to just fill up more time to maybe sway some more people. If the majority are already on the same page, why should the filibuster even be a thing?

    [read less]

    The filibuster is a waste of time.It’s a way for the minority to just fill up more time to maybe sway some more people. If the majority are already on…

    [read more]
    1
  • rex from Missouri

    i think it should because it is not fair to be able to let the senate just pass there laws because they can with out any sorts of just a process

    1
  • Kemani from Missouri

    I believe we should have a filibuster so everybody can have a say or somewhat understand the topic better. I believe not having a filibuster would not help the situation at all with deciding on a law. I strongly believe we should have a filibuster to delay some type of topic or law being held. We as people need to understand what law were putting in place and how that will affect people in society.

    [read less]

    I believe we should have a filibuster so everybody can have a say or somewhat understand the topic better. I believe not having a filibuster would not…

    [read more]
    1
  • Paige from Missouri

    yes because we use it to prevent the vote on a bill and it consider the of the minority party

    1
  • Jack from Illinois

    I believe that congress should reform the filibuster because the filibuster appears nowhere in the constitution. This legislative blockade cannot stand. Others in the Senate, including Democrats and the Independents caucusing with them, should exercise the only remaining available option which is the reformation of the filibuster rules. For example, In March, the House of Representatives passed the For the People Act. The Senate Republicans repeatedly blockaded any progress on parallel legislation, in part by using the Senate filibuster rules, which require a 60-vote supermajority, instead of a simple majority vote, to move forward on legislation. With Senate Republicans again blocking progress on voting rights legislation, other senators face a moment of reckoning. Reform the outmoded and anti-democratic filibuster or witness the further degradation of democracy. The Senate filibuster rules, which have been amended many times before, cannot take misplaced priority over protecting the voting rights of Americans of all backgrounds and reducing corruption in the country’s political system.

    [read less]

    I believe that congress should reform the filibuster because the filibuster appears nowhere in the constitution. This legislative blockade cannot sta…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mykolas from Illinois

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed. The filibuster grants the minority too much power, why should we have decisions disregarded and delayed due to a small minority. You may think the minority should have this power but why would a small minority be able to completely disregard anything they don’t approve of. I believe the opinions of all people matter but I don’t think it’s fair that we grant power to a minority because they are at a disadvantage, rather I think the filibuster should be reformed where we can still take the opinions of the minority but they shouldn’t have the power to delay or cancel any decisions because they support these decisions. The balance of power, how can we have one group of people overpower the other due to advantages granted to them. That is why a filibuster must be present but not overwhelmingly powerful where they can partially control what is brought up and not due to their personal ideals. In conclusion I believe the filibuster should be reformed, not entirely removed but remade for a more balanced stance.

    [read less]

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed. The filibuster grants the minority too much power, why should we have decisions disregarded and dela…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sumaira from Illinois

    I think that the filibuster should be reformed. This is a process that allows congress to debate about an issue so that they can delay voting/making a decision on that topic. This issue should be reformed because although this process helps the minority be heard, it isn’t a very efficient way to make that happen. Prolonging the decision making process of an issue won’t get rid of that issue; eventually, a decision will need to be made. The issue that they are focused on should be discussed and debated over rather than just avoiding it altogether. They are abusing their power and wasting everyone’s time by doing this. Former president Barack Obama referred to the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic,” which I agree with. This is a thing that’s threatening people’s civil rights. Instead of discussing the issue, many legislators will talk about something that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. For example, Ted Cruz spent 21 hours on the floor of the senate, and his goal was to help defund obamacare. During this time, he talked about Dr. Suess and white castle burgers. This seems very comedic and it puts the US in a bad light because other countries may see something like this and take America less seriously. It makes a mockery of what we stand for as a country. In the end, the decision will have to be made, and delaying it won’t stop the inevitable. It goes against our democracy because it wastes time and allows someone to delay making a decision just because they don’t agree with them. Many people may argue that the filibuster allows the minority to have a voice. This may be true, but I think there are better ways to address this issue that are more conducive to everyone and time efficient. Some also argue that it gives people more time to think through details before casting a final decision. This would be true if this tool was used like it was meant to be. Instead, like we have seen many times in the past, people just use it to avoid the issue altogether and not allow others to discuss and finish the matter. The filibuster is a wastless tool that should be reformed.

    [read less]

    I think that the filibuster should be reformed. This is a process that allows congress to debate about an issue so that they can delay voting/making a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Massachusetts

    The filibuster is a preventative act for the minorities of the Senate to execute in their favor. The point of the filibuster is to postpone or cancel any bills that aren’t in favor of the opposing party, but no one needs to spend time debating legislation just because they aren’t in favor of it, it just slows down everything and stops work from being done. The filibuster needs to be removed or changed because for centuries now it has caused difficulty in the proceedings of our Senate.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is a preventative act for the minorities of the Senate to execute in their favor. The point of the filibuster is to postpone or cancel …

    [read more]
    0
  • Ninh from Massachusetts

    The filibuster is a clear violation of our democratic beliefs and should be reformed. Initially created to encourage debate and compromise in the Senate, now, the filibuster is used as a defense mechanism for the minority party to delay or completely stop bills unfavorable to them. Besides being a time consuming process that delays legislation, the filibuster also gives an unreasonable amount of power to the minority party. It only takes 41 out of the 100 members in the Senate to completely stop a bill from even being voted on. In recent years, the filibuster has been abused by the minority party, and as a result, passing bills has become near impossible. The Senate cannot do their duty in government with our current system in place. Our fundamental principles of majority rule established by the Constitution are breached by this system of filibustering. While it’s true that the filibuster promotes debate and helps maintain a bipartisan government by forcing compromise between parties, it has been starting to feel like a cheap trump card. Reforms to the filibuster are necessary to make the Senate functional again.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is a clear violation of our democratic beliefs and should be reformed. Initially created to encourage debate and compromise in the Sena…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Massachusetts

    The filibuster should be reformed as it is an obstruction to the democratic practices our country was founded on. In the 116th congress, 270 clotures were invoked. The minority is exactly that- a minority. The filibuster does not align with the values of democracy, and therefore should be reformed.

    [read less]

    The filibuster should be reformed as it is an obstruction to the democratic practices our country was founded on. In the 116th congress, 270 clotures …

    [read more]
    0
  • Maggie from Massachusetts

    I believe that the filibuster should not be removed entirely but be reformed or limited. Unlimited debate is a key feature of Senate that allows for the exploration of issues from every viewpoint and angle, however debate for the sake of procrastination is unhelpful. There should not be such a small amount of bills that are actually voted on in the Senate because it was voted in to do such a job. We elect senators to vote on what is best for America and its people, however the filibuster has recently prevented that from happening almost entirely. If the Senate were designed simply for debate and for the party with the minority to prevent losing, it would not have been given the power to legislate at all. Debate is necessary for understanding, but can also be harmful. I believe that the filibuster should be used if productive debate is still necessary for a vote, but not for more debate as a whole. If a bill is passed that means that the majority of elected officials believed it should be so, and that is what they were placed in the position to do. The filibuster should not be thrown out all together, however it is delaying the actions of democracy and the Senate.

    [read less]

    I believe that the filibuster should not be removed entirely but be reformed or limited. Unlimited debate is a key feature of Senate that allows for t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Skyla from Massachusetts

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed because it just wastes time. If there is postponal of a bill just because a party does not like it, that is giving the minority too much power. The partys I think should be able to debate (within reason of time) and then vote, because voting strictly based on party is not right, because someone may agree with a bill proposed by the other party and be the said number needed to have it past. A filibuster within reason is good, but i believe it has been taken advantage of. It is no longer to simply make sure the majority is not passing whatever they want, but is also being used as the minoritys way to make sure nothing goes through. Bills are meant to be passed or not passed, not sit on the senate floor for a week because someone does not like it. The filibuster should be reformed.

    [read less]

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed because it just wastes time. If there is postponal of a bill just because a party does not like it, t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kathleen from Massachusetts

    The United States should reform the filibuster. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a super-majoritarian voting rule in Congress. The filibuster shuts down bills that if heard and passed could make a huge difference. It goes against democratic principles to shut down ideas of the people. If a bill does not deserve to be passed then the Senate should vote no not just refuse to hear the argument. Proposals should be able to get a full debate and vote in which’ elected representatives make clear where they stand. The filibuster limits democratic decisions and takes peoples voices away.

    [read less]

    The United States should reform the filibuster. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a super-majoritarian voting rule in Congress. The f…

    [read more]
    0
  • Oscar from Massachusetts

    The filibuster should be changed/removed. The true meaning of democracy is “form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation, or to choose governing officials to do so.” If we the people go out of our ways to vote every other year to try to have a voice in the Senate thinking it would change our lives for the better and no laws are ever passed due to the filibuster then what is the point of wasting our day and going to vote and having a democracy? The filibuster does not help in any way unless you are on the opposing side and don’t want to see the law being passed, but if you are on the opposing end why not try to persuade the other side of where you are coming from instead of stalling everything and not allowing a Democracy of a government to work?

    [read less]

    The filibuster should be changed/removed. The true meaning of democracy is “form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate an…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aria from Massachusetts

    Yes, the filibuster should be reformed. The filibuster is illogical in that nearly every piece of legislation could possibly be filibustered. Therefore, in keeping the filibuster, the minority could prevent everything that it does not want to be passed from even having a chance to be heard. This goes against democracy, and even the will of the people, in that the majority – the voice of most people in this country – could be silenced and kept from achieving anything, thus thwarting any change wanted by the American people. It also makes it nigh impossible to get anything done. With the filibuster in place, each party can stop the other from passing almost anything. This significantly limits the amount of change that can take place when much of the legislation that they are attempting to pass presents changes that need to happen.

    [read less]

    Yes, the filibuster should be reformed. The filibuster is illogical in that nearly every piece of legislation could possibly be filibustered. Therefor…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Massachusetts

    It’s not a matter of what political party you stand with or how radical or conservative you want the United States government to be. It’s a matter of our government performing as a democracy in which the government serves the people. In order for the nation to continue as a functioning democracy the Senate must reform the filibuster. The filibuster prevents democracy in the Senate because it allows for an opposing political party to prevent the will of the people. When there is inevitably a minority in the Senate it is the people of the United States who voted that way. Therefore, it should not be allowed that the political party with the minority number be allowed to stop the votes and progress of the majority. Senators aren’t strictly voted for because of their party, it is also for the policies and issues they wish to fight for when elected into Congress. If a filibuster is just going to prevent anything from changing, what is the point? The peoples’ ideas for the progress of our nation will never be put into action. The will of the majority should not however silence the voice of those opposed. Therefore, the filibuster should not be removed altogether but rather reformed. Senators should be able to openly object and have a say in all matters. But when that is abused merely because it doesn’t go with their political views rather than how it affects Americans is when issues arise. Being able to threaten a filibuster should not be enough, it should once again be required that Senators must argue their oppositions and when there is nothing left to say let there be a vote. Our democracy is based on voting and the way the filibuster currently stands keeps that from happening.

    [read less]

    It’s not a matter of what political party you stand with or how radical or conservative you want the United States government to be. It’s a matter…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Massachusetts

    Although the filibuster may have begun as a way for senators to seriously contemplate and consider bills before voting on them, the filibuster is a remnant of a outdated age, not suited for todays political landscape, able to be abused over and over again, in order to gain political power rather then representing the needs of the people. The filibuster has prevented time and time again or at the very least delayed important bills that would be to the benefit of the people. Such as the 1957 filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, for a whole 24 hours. Or the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 75 hours. These were important acts that clearly had the means to pass the vote, but were attempted to be prevented to in order for political gain by the minority. The Senate was made in order to represent each state fairly, with each state being given 2 Senators. If the Senate is made for this purpose, then why should a minority of the representatives be able to simply prevent a law from even being voted on by just threatening to? At the very least, the filibuster should be revised in order to be a simple majority.

    [read less]

    Although the filibuster may have begun as a way for senators to seriously contemplate and consider bills before voting on them, the filibuster is a re…

    [read more]
    0
  • Artem from Illinois

    The US Senate is perhaps the most dysfunctional legislative body in the free world and the filibuster is to blame for this. Essentially, every piece of legislation must have a minimum of 60 votes to pass, with some narrow exceptions that can use the reconciliation process. This supermajority requires an absurd level of compromise among the American people. The Senate is already fundamentally structured to protect minority rights – unlike in the House, every state gets equal representation in the Senate. Due to this, Senate Democrats represent 41 million more American voters than their Republican counterparts (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/why-the-senate-should-abolish-the-filibuster). Adding a 60 vote requirement on top of this means that a lot of crucial legislation, while being popular with Americans, does not pass. There are numerous examples for this, notably For the People Act (supported by 67% of Americans), Bipartisan Background Checks Act (supported by 86%), and Raise the Wage Act (supported by 60%) (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html, https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/1/22/majority-support-hr1-democracy-reforms). Despite having broad popular support, all of these were filibustered. This of course is repugnant and not at all the intent of the Founding Fathers. In fact, one of the biggest reasons why the Constitution was written was because the Congress under the Articles of Confederation was an unwieldy institution. An impossible supermajority was required to pass legislation, making progress slow even if most Americans supported it. The current structure was specifically designed with only a simple majority required to pass laws in both chambers, thus ensuring democracy while protecting minority interests by giving each state two senators regardless of population. Filibuster came about much later as a perverse way to obstruct change by essentially reviving the Articles of Confederation’s supermajority rule. Today, endless debate is not even required to block legislation anymore; all that is needed is the threat of doing so, and the bill is not even considered for debate. Thus, the filibuster is undoubtedly in dire need of reform. Abolishing it altogether, however, is not an adequate solution. The Senate is a divided, polarized institution, which has the potential to change leadership frequently. Currently, it is divided 50/50, but this can change after the 2022 midterms, and may change again after the 2024 elections. If a simple majority were to be required to pass legislation, partisan bills would be passed but then repealed and replaced every two years when the Senate has a new majority. Progress is important, but so is stability, and laws cannot change every time the majority party changes. There are several ways of reforming the filibuster without entirely abolishing it. One is to eliminate the filibuster on the motion to proceed. Currently, 60 votes are effectively required to even begin debate on a bill. Once a great deliberative body, the modern Senate consists of lawmakers with preconceived notions who are willing to neither persuade nor be persuaded by others. Allowing the Senate to begin debate via a simple majority will ensure that every piece of legislation has a chance to be at least considered. In addition to this, filibustering senators must be required to actually hold the floor during the debate. This way, the opposing senators will be able to voice their concerns and attempt to sway their colleagues rather than just killing the bill without discussion. A live debate would give the Senate more time to examine the bill and propose amendments. Taking the floor would also require a greater effort from the senators who wish to filibuster and make their actions overt, so lawmakers would be reluctant to obstruct progress, and only the most passionate of them will actually attempt to block the legislation. Furthermore, during the debate, no other business will be done, and minority senators will lose time and draw anger from the public. When the “two-track system” was introduced in 1970s, allowing the Senate to work on other tasks during a filibuster and removing the requirement of a filibuster being verbal, the number of filibusters has actually skyrocketed, and any major legislation became nearly impossible to pass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#The_two-track_system,_60-vote_rule_and_rise_of_the_routine_filibuster_(1970_onward)). Thus, undoing this change will decrease the number of filibusters to its pre-1970 levels and make it more likely to just slow down, rather than completely block, legislation. Finally, the threshold for invoking cloture should be lowered from 60 to 54, ensuring that progress comes with a sufficient (but not exceedingly high) degree of compromise and legislation is not constantly repealed and reinstituted again. In conclusion, a clumsy legislative body that follows neither the will of the Founding Fathers nor the desire of the American people, but instead makes decisions based on partisan and corporate interests, has no place in American democracy. One of the chambers of Congress already conducts its business swiftly, now it is time to make the other one match as well.

    [read less]

    The US Senate is perhaps the most dysfunctional legislative body in the free world and the filibuster is to blame for this. Essentially, every piece o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniel from New York

    The filibuster, as it currently stands, creates significant legislative gridlock, and prevents the majority party, which was elected to become the majority in the Senate, from getting anything done. That said, the minority should not simply be shut out of proceedings and be prevented from giving input into legislation. If the minority party wishes to filibuster, instead of simply writing an objection to voting on the bill, should be forced to talk on the floor, however long they wish. Cloture votes should also be decreased from 60 to a more reasonable number, such as 55.

    [read less]

    The filibuster, as it currently stands, creates significant legislative gridlock, and prevents the majority party, which was elected to become the maj…

    [read more]
    0
  • Peter from Kentucky

    The Senate should reform the filibuster. They should not completely remove the filibuster, but I believe that it does need reform. This is due to the nature of the filibuster itself, as it is primarily used by the minority party in the Senate to stall bills. Now, I believe that stalling bills is completely valid, but there should be some other way to stall them then a filibuster. The whole idea of a filibuster is that it is a way to speak for as long as it takes to delay debate or votes needed to pass a law, so putting some sort of time limit on a filibuster would defeat its whole purpose. And although cloture exists, which is a way for three-fifths of the Senate to vote to end the filibuster, it still is rare and is not guaranteed to work when the Senate does not usually have a majority of 60 to 40. However, I believe that there are ways to make it more difficult to filibuster a law. For example, Molly Reynolds writes in brookings.edu that some senators are aiming “to reduce the frequency of filibusters by making it more difficult for senators to use the tactic, including requiring senators who oppose a measure to be physically present in the chamber to prevent an end to debate.” Also, there exist ways to “mini-nuke” specific filibusters on certain motions, but will still “leave the 60-vote rule intact.” These filibuster restrictions could target potential filibusters of bills that have just been proposed, or even bills that have already been debated a certain amount. I think it is obvious that the filibuster is flawed and must be reformed to more greatly promote democracy and equal representation in the Senate, but I also believe that it is a vital part of our government and must be kept in order to preserve the democracy of our political system, no matter how flawed it is in its current state.

    [read less]

    The Senate should reform the filibuster. They should not completely remove the filibuster, but I believe that it does need reform. This is due to the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Sabrina from Massachusetts

    I believe that the filibuster should be removed or changed. This was created in the early days of congress when it would have made sense for it to be in affect because of the small amount of senators. It no longer makes sense because the minority could be up to 49 people now. It is very hard for important bills that are needed for the country to move toward to pass if every time the minority stops a bill that they don’t like. For these reasons I believe that the filibuster should be removed or changed.

    [read less]

    I believe that the filibuster should be removed or changed. This was created in the early days of congress when it would have made sense for it to be …

    [read more]
    0
  • Sam from Massachusetts

    I am more than in favor of reform for the modern senate filibuster. Currently, filibustering requires no commitment or follow-through, and has effectively stripped the senate of its given powers to be able to enact broad-scale change. It’s also my opinion that the filibuster (indirectly) hinders the execution of election results; by removing or hindering the privileges a majority in the senate would traditionally have. After all, a majority is elected for a reason; because democratic opinion says that party is the one who the public wants with the most power. That removal and the deadlock that keeps major bills from seeing the light of day means that the filibuster’s power has limited the efficacy of the senate and that in and of itself is more than enough to rationalize reforming it. That being said, I can’t (thinking rationally) advocate for a removal of the filibuster entirely. The most all-encompassing reform I would advocate for would be returning to the previous definition of a classic filibuster and insisting on productive and relevant debate. A Senate majority is naturally meant to give the majority an upper hand in passing legislation, and so if the minority feels passionately enough about blocking legislation they should feel compelled to put in the work to do so. A true filibuster is notoriously grueling, long-winded, and intellectually exhaustive; but a good politician should be more than able to defend their points for as long as it takes. A classic filibuster would also explore the complexities of our representatives’ views and would endear the public to their own thought processes and even their morals. If no filibuster is accomplished (and it stands to reason with this policy a lot less will be) then the American public will be able to see just where their representatives stand through their voting practices and commitment to relevant debate; not through their ambiguous refusal to even consider a measure, which is all too common with the modern Senate filibuster.

    [read less]

    I am more than in favor of reform for the modern senate filibuster. Currently, filibustering requires no commitment or follow-through, and has effecti…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sophia from New York

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed.
    Currently, an argument against the reform of the filibuster is that it was created to promote compromise. However, the compromise was never the goal. In the earlier decades, filibusters were used sparingly and with purpose to control the majority power. However, in recent years, the minority party has started to abuse it. They use the filibuster as a “veto” on a bill by extending the argument long enough to push it back. Not only does this undermine the work of the other party to create a cohesive argument, but it also uses up time that could be spent on other issues.
    This brings us to another argument against the reform of the filibuster: that it gives rights to the minority power and that the minority power must have a voice to prevent tyranny. However, I think that tyranny is an exaggeration of the power of the majority. Tyranny, by definition, is a cruel and oppressive government or rule, usually one in which there is a single ruler. Although the majority party can dominate the government, it does not do so without reason. Also, because of the “veto-like” effect of the filibuster, minority groups suppress the voice of the majority, leading to the tyranny that they are very much against.
    To solve these issues, the filibuster should be reformed. One way that this can happen is through time limits on the speeches. This way, filibusters give the minority a chance to support their claim with cohesive resources. Not only will this force senators to condense their argument to the most important topics, but it will also shorten the length of each meeting and lead to a more productive government.

    [read less]

    I believe that the filibuster should be reformed.
    Currently, an argument against the reform of the filibuster is that it was created to promote compr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lillian from New York

    The filibuster should either be significantly reformed or completely done away with.
    It is not mandated by the Constitution, and as founding father Alexander Hamilton aptly wrote in Federalist Papers 22, “To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.” From the founding of the republic, people have recognized it is fundamentally undemocratic to require a supermajority and prevent the elected majority (or the will of the people) from achieving their agenda. Our government is already structured to count the voices of the political minority, as the Senate itself was the compromise to ensure that large and small states would have the same representation. The filibuster currently gives that political minority too much power to stall any legislation that they do not agree with.
    Although proponents for the filibuster say it actually promotes bipartisan cooperation, the opposite is likely more often true. It creates frustration between the parties, and if it is constantly invoked, it creates doubt about the government’s effectiveness. Additionally, the House of Representatives is able to be bipartisan, even though it only needs a simple majority.
    Finally, it is rooted in racism. The filibuster was consistently used to prevent the passage of many civil rights bills, and many have even called it a relic of the Jim Crow era. If we really want to protect minority rights, it is important to not just consider the political minority, but the minorities in our country that have already been historically oppressed.
    As leaders in democracy, we must recognize that the filibuster is dated and either needs reform or to be abolished.

    [read less]

    The filibuster should either be significantly reformed or completely done away with.
    It is not mandated by the Constitution, and as founding father …

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Kentucky

    The filibuster is a very unique tool for the Senate of the US Government, as it is not allowed in the House. To consider the reason for its exclusiveness to the Senate, we must consider its purpose. Just as a student may stall class to make class expire by discussing a topic for an extensive amount of time without interruption, Senators of the minority party in the Senate can make a bill expire by taking the floor and discussing a topic for hours upon hours to prevent a vote from happening.

    Although advocates of the filibuster support listening to the voice of the minority Senators, there are alternative ways to make every Senator’s voice count. Every Senator should have the opportunity to speak on the floor, but there must be a certain modification: time limits for a Senator to have the floor. Currently, Senators can schedule a time to speak on the floor and designate an estimated time for how long they will be speaking. However, they are also given the option to not provide a time constraint, allowing them to speak for hours upon hours in order to stall a vote on a bill. With a time limit in place, Senators would be forced to propose their ideas in a timely fashion and more legislation can pass through the Legislative branch of government.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is a very unique tool for the Senate of the US Government, as it is not allowed in the House. To consider the reason for its exclusiven…

    [read more]
    0
  • Olivia from Virginia

    The filibuster must be reformed because it is a relic of the past that has been abused to prevent legislation from being passed that would help the American people. The filibuster was originally made to prevent the majority from abusing its power in Congress but has been used since its creation to obstruct valuable legislature that would help a vast majority of Americans. The filibuster is often cited as a relic of the ‘Jim Crow’ era as it was used to prevent anti-lynching laws and Civil Rights acts for African Americans in the 20th century. In the present day, the filibuster has been used to halt several critical and widely accepted laws like the raising of the minimum wage. While the filibuster was made to promote compromise between disagreeing parties, it cannot help if the opposing side refuses to cooperate in any way. Additionally, laws that were challenged by the filibuster but were passed were often not watered down to meet the other party’s goals, but actually strengthened, meaning a key part of the filibuster does not work as it is supposed to. In its current state, the filibuster is preventing democracy from occurring as the majority of what Americans want is held hostage by a minority group that refuses to agree or compromise.

    [read less]

    The filibuster must be reformed because it is a relic of the past that has been abused to prevent legislation from being passed that would help the Am…

    [read more]
    0
  • Derrick from Kentucky

    Yes I believe that the Filibuster should be reformed due to the abuse of such a power. I think that it is unfair to use this power to stall on important topics that may come up. If the Filibuster is reformed I believe that there will be more progress that comes out. Although this is a useful act to use to bring up important topics and views on such topics it is without a doubt abused to ignore other opinions/topics on a law.
    If the Filibuster were to be altered in order for the Filibusteree to be stopped or interrupted if he/she is abusing the power then it will work. But this will also bring up the chance of abuse of the power ot cancel, interrupt, or stop the Filibusteree even if they are on an important topic

    [read less]

    Yes I believe that the Filibuster should be reformed due to the abuse of such a power. I think that it is unfair to use this power to stall on importa…

    [read more]
    0
  • sydney from Kentucky

    I believe the country should reform the filibuster because politicians can use it for however long they wish in order to stall a bill being voted on. Democracy is the people voting, not stalling on bills. Even if the bill does not get voted into effect, it was still voted on, it is still a type of progress. When voting on more bills, the country can see more progress for the people in all areas of the country. Each side, liberals and conservatives, can try to pass more bills that they wish to be passed. Overall, filibustering just wastes time that can be properly used for the betterment of the country.

    [read less]

    I believe the country should reform the filibuster because politicians can use it for however long they wish in order to stall a bill being voted on. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Barbara from Maryland

    The filibuster is a relic from the old Jim Crow era and 21st century America cannot afford to let this relic drive our policy and/or politics!!! If we want to save and restore our democratic Republic, the filibuster must be eliminated or at the very reformed!!!!

    [read less]

    The filibuster is a relic from the old Jim Crow era and 21st century America cannot afford to let this relic drive our policy and/or politics!!! If we…

    [read more]
    0
  • Natalya from Massachusetts

    The filibuster is an important part of American democracy, first and foremost because it gives the minority opinion a voice. Many aspects of American political structure are founded on the idea that minority parties should still have some power because they represent a very significant portion of Americans. The Senate itself reflects this idea – it gives equal representation to every state, regardless of population. The filibuster falls perfectly in line with this. It gives power to minority party and helps ensure that every bill that passes the Senate has some bipartisan support. If there was an election and one group won with 100 votes to 99 votes, should the 100 group be able to do anything they want? Should the 99 group be entirely ignored? Does a party have the right to be dictatorial simply because they have the majority, or should all legislation that passes require at least some support from people of different political backgrounds? Those who oppose the filibuster might argue that it is anti-democracy, but I would assert the exact opposite. The filibuster ensures that everyone, even those in the minority, are represented. One party should not be allowed to impose whatever legislation they like simply because they have a few more senators. A small difference in numbers doesn’t eliminate the existence of nearly one half of the country, hence the filibuster allows them to still have some power in the Senate.

    The problems brought up by those who oppose the filibuster are problems not with the filibuster itself but ultimately with the two party system in America. George Washington himself warned strongly against this system in his farewell address, saying, “The alternate domination of one faction over another… is itself a frightful despotism”. Elimination of this system would cure the concerns of those who oppose the filibuster. A country with more political parties would not reduce Americans to colors and numbers, but provide a fuller and more accurate picture of what citizens want out of their government.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is an important part of American democracy, first and foremost because it gives the minority opinion a voice. Many aspects of American …

    [read more]
    1
  • Caleb from Michigan

    I do not believe that the filibuster should be removed, for two main reasons. The first, being that it gives the minority a voice in the Senate. Without the use of the filibuster their voice will become inundated with the “louder” group. The second reason, is that it promotes the use of free speech in our government. However, with these things said, I also believe that the number for cloture should be reduced to 55. The Senators were elected by the American people, if the public’s voice is not heard, then America ceases to be the Constitutional Republic that it is, rather, the representative system that we have in place will become frangible.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that the filibuster should be removed, for two main reasons. The first, being that it gives the minority a voice in the Senate. Witho…

    [read more]
    1
  • William from Michigan

    The Filibuster should not be eliminated. In our government we have this concept of a “balance of powers”, and if we remove the ability for a minority to object to a bill, the result would be anarchy of the majority who would be able to pass a bill without concern for the opposing sides views. The whole concept of the filibuster is to allow the majority to bring the majority to the bargaining table for compromise. This is a good tool to even out the playing field, and both the DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS admit that freely…..at least when they are in the minority they do. People keep saying it goes against Democracy, when the founders never actually intended us to be a pure democracy! The whole reason we are not a Democracy is so that we do not have ANARCHY OF THE MAJORITY! We have checks and balances for the 3 branches of government, so we should have them within each of the branches.

    [read less]

    The Filibuster should not be eliminated. In our government we have this concept of a “balance of powers”, and if we remove the ability for a minority…

    [read more]
    1
  • Matthew from Michigan

    As a Democratic Republic Country, we vote for people to protect our rights. With that, we one need to keep cloture at sixty percent, so that every bill that is brought up is not there due to one party making all the choices, and will be deemed worthy. Now two, we must uphold the filibuster, for it stops bills from delaying the senate from looking at other bills and help preserve minority rights.

    [read less]

    As a Democratic Republic Country, we vote for people to protect our rights. With that, we one need to keep cloture at sixty percent, so that every bil…

    [read more]
    1
  • william from Missouri

    the filibuster isn’t used much but when it is its used mostly as a threat saying that they will go through great lengths to make sure this doesn’t happen. great lengths as in it’s a hard and long process to actually do one. i don’t think it should change.

    [read less]

    the filibuster isn’t used much but when it is its used mostly as a threat saying that they will go through great lengths to make sure this doesn’t hap…

    [read more]
    1
  • Jayden from Missouri

    The filibuster needs to stay the way we have it. it helps make sure that the majority doesn’t completely over power the minority.

    1
  • Kenzy from Missouri

    I think that the filibuster should stay the same because It really doesn’t make a big difference and the filibuster helps the state and promotes compromise on legislation. The filibuster also provides us with limitations on power. It helps the legislation extend debate when and if is needed so.

    [read less]

    I think that the filibuster should stay the same because It really doesn’t make a big difference and the filibuster helps the state and promotes compr…

    [read more]
    1
  • Emilie from Missouri

    I don’t think we should reform the filibuster for multiple reasons. It has always been this way and I don’t believe there is any reason to change it because it isn’t causing any harm. The filibuster ensures that any decisions are well thought through.

    [read less]

    I don’t think we should reform the filibuster for multiple reasons. It has always been this way and I don’t believe there is any reason to change it b…

    [read more]
    1
  • Brayden from Missouri

    I think the Filibuster should stay in place in hopes that it will give those who vote on the law, more time to think through all of the details before casting their final decision, which could change so many lives if done wrong.

    [read less]

    I think the Filibuster should stay in place in hopes that it will give those who vote on the law, more time to think through all of the details before…

    [read more]
    1
  • Alexis from Missouri

    The filibuster should not be reformed. It allows more time for the person to persuade. It really allows them to get their point across or delay something they don’t want to happen. I is very beneficial and is fair.

    [read less]

    The filibuster should not be reformed. It allows more time for the person to persuade. It really allows them to get their point across or delay someth…

    [read more]
    1
  • Tyler from Missouri

    The Filibuster is one of the checks in the checks and balances that were set in place to even out the powers of the senate and house of reps. The filibuster is one of the tools that the senate can use just like the house of representatives can use theirs.

    [read less]

    The Filibuster is one of the checks in the checks and balances that were set in place to even out the powers of the senate and house of reps. The fili…

    [read more]
    1
  • Kadence from Missouri

    The filibuster should stay the same because it promotes compromise in the legislation and it will also allow the minority in the senate to have power.

    1
  • jacob from Missouri

    I think the filibuster should stay same because other wise the majority would take over the minority

    1
  • Rylee from Missouri

    I think we should keep the filibuster because it gives the minority at least some power that they wouldn’t otherwise have. It also allows for time to think through the law and make sure everyone understands what they are voting on. Even if the minority still loses then at least they had a chance to get what they wanted.

    [read less]

    I think we should keep the filibuster because it gives the minority at least some power that they wouldn’t otherwise have. It also allows for time to …

    [read more]
    1
  • Alayna from Missouri

    The filibuster can help because if the majority is all one party, the law gets passed with no question. The filibuster allows for the minority to get their point across as well as more time to think about the bill in question.

    [read less]

    The filibuster can help because if the majority is all one party, the law gets passed with no question. The filibuster allows for the minority to get …

    [read more]
    1
  • Myranda from Missouri

    I say no because it has worked for past laws and it gives time for the lawmakers to review the law. Also most of the time what the filibuster says does not relate to the law and is just random.

    [read less]

    I say no because it has worked for past laws and it gives time for the lawmakers to review the law. Also most of the time what the filibuster says doe…

    [read more]
    1
  • Emma from Missouri

    The filibuster should stay as it is because it promotes compromise in legislation. It also prevents the majority from completely sweeping the minority out of any kind of power. The filibuster is only ever argued against by the people who are being contested by it.

    [read less]

    The filibuster should stay as it is because it promotes compromise in legislation. It also prevents the majority from completely sweeping the minority…

    [read more]
    1
  • Meric from Missouri

    I think we should keep it because it gives them time to think about the law through and make sure they understand it.

    1
  • mackenna from Missouri

    No, they should not reform the filibuster. This is because this allows the minority in the senate to have some power.

    1
  • GAvin from Missouri

    I think we should have a fillibuster. Its much needed and i think it should stay since its been in the past and has been a way for them to prove themselve.

    1
  • Amanda from Missouri

    I believe that people that aren’t in the majority deserve to have their thoughts heard also. Even if someone gets that attention by rambling for hours.

    1
  • Elizabeth from Missouri

    I believe No we shouldn’t reform the filibuster because it is an important part of the government that we have today, I feel that we all have the right to voice our opinion, the filibuster was made for a reason, first the Republican party wanted to get rid of it then it was the Democratic party, you can’t just get rid of something that has been around for a long time because things are not going your way. When a law is passed it has to be read carefully all the way through to see if it has a real impact on everyone, and that it’s all agreed by everyone. However that’s my opinion on reforming the filibuster.

    [read less]

    I believe No we shouldn’t reform the filibuster because it is an important part of the government that we have today, I feel that we all have the rig…

    [read more]
    1
  • Jack from Illinois

    No I do not believe the government has the right to change the rules within the government on this issue. The United States has been a successful nation due to the constitution and limitations and with the success of “checks and balances”. To me the filibuster is in place to not give too much power to one party and especially the executive branch. The democrats have been pushing to instead of having 60 votes in the senate to pass items, only a simple majority is needed. It is simply not right. They just want power to systematically change this country forever and it is quite dangerous. The filibuster is in place for a reason – and it needs to stay that way. I understand their thinking, they are getting frustrated because they can’t get much of their agenda passed through due to filibuster. Although, that is what makes America great – the ability to compromise. We want a stable government and country. If it moves to just a simple majority (no filibuster) whoever is president is just going to be constantly undoing whatever the other party has in place. It will be an absolute war and chaos. Nothing will last long term because it will just be removed by the opposing party. It seems like the democrats are the only ones who want this push. This was not an option nor a discussion during the Trump presidency. I think if it truly was so bad and not right. There would be an agreement by both parties. But the fact that it is only the left creates skepticism and gives many people a sense of worry. Of course a party and leaders want power. But one should be able to have only so much. And it seems like the left is crossing that line.
    The filibuster needs to be kept in order to keep this country steady and a democracy. Too much power for one side never leads to good and goes against American values.

    [read less]

    No I do not believe the government has the right to change the rules within the government on this issue. The United States has been a successful nati…

    [read more]
    0
  • Angier from New York

    The filibuster should not be reformed or removed. Although it seems outdated and unfair, the filibuster allows the minority in the Senate to maintain their voice on important legislation. This is incredibly important considering that the minority in the Senate, especially in recent years, has been around 47 or 48, theoretically representing 47-48% of the people of the United States. Filibusters can be ended by 3/5ths of the Senate invoking cloture, which means that if a filibuster is successful in holding up legislation for long periods of time or even “killing” legislation then the issue in question is highly controversial and shouldn’t simply be decided by 1 or 2 votes. Another reason the filibuster should remain unchanged is that it is commonly used by both parties. Although many people currently associate filibustering with Republicans stalling progressive reforms, the filibuster was also commonly used by Democrats, even recently, when Republicans had the Senate Majority. According to the Washington Post, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s wall, legislation limiting legal abortions and legislation forcing sanctuary cities to cooperate with ICE investigations, just to name a few. Considering Democrats used the filibuster so often when they were the minority in the Senate, it is unreasonable that they should now so strongly oppose the filibuster only because they are the majority. These are just two of the many reasons why the filibuster should stay as it is.

    [read less]

    The filibuster should not be reformed or removed. Although it seems outdated and unfair, the filibuster allows the minority in the Senate to maintain …

    [read more]
    0
  • Maura from New York

    The filibuster is important because it encourages change and compromise. If it weren’t for the filibuster, the majority party would almost always get their way, developing a one sided government. However, the whole point of government is to have everyone represented equally and to compromise on controversial issues. If your political party has the majority in the senate or the house, you probably think the filibuster is unnecessary and bothersome, but remember, your party may be in the minority next year. Whoever is in the minority needs not only a voice to be represented, but an actual chance at accomplishing their goal. The filibuster gives them that chance. The filibuster is a testament to our democracy and the ‘great American experiment’. That is why I think it is crucial that we continue to use it, so every individual benefits from our free country.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is important because it encourages change and compromise. If it weren’t for the filibuster, the majority party would almost always get …

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Minnesota

    I personally believe that there needs to be a rule in place to ensure that no party is able to somehow bend the rules.

    0
  • Jonathan from Massachusetts

    The filibuster is important for senators to be able to speak freely about a piece of legislation. Ending the filibuster would take away a unique part of our democracy only used in one house that forces and encourages bipartisan legislation and blocks any radical legislation. The House had the right to end the filibuster simply because the House is too large and because a simple majority in the House is a better representation of the country than a simple majority in the Senate. Since the Senate only has 100 senators, having a simple majority isn’t a good representation of the political beliefs of the majority of Americans since every state has two senators, so when legislation is passed by a simple majority, it isn’t always representative of what the majority of Americans really want. Though some Senators have abused the filibuster, many have made long speeches that were able to outline key issues with pieces of legislation and ultimately convince other senators the same allowing bipartisan cooperation within our government that positively effects the most amount of people. Some examples of this were in the 1930s when Huey Long used the filibuster against a bill he thought favored the rich over the poor and in the 1950s when Wayne Morse used the filibuster to educate the public on issues he considered to be of national interest.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is important for senators to be able to speak freely about a piece of legislation. Ending the filibuster would take away a unique part …

    [read more]
    0
  • Laney from Missouri

    Government can be very one sided and sometimes the smaller decisions and viewpoints are not heard this is a way to which they can ensure that they are heard and give people time to think about the consequences

    [read less]

    Government can be very one sided and sometimes the smaller decisions and viewpoints are not heard this is a way to which they can ensure that they are…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maria from Kentucky

    No, the Senate should not reform the filibuster. Without the filibuster, the government could be overrun by one political party. The filibuster gives an advantage to the minority party by preventing the majority from passing laws. Despite how slow this makes the legislation process, it is critical in preventing laws that are extreme and possibly harmful to the country. It is important to keep the filibuster in order to level the playing field a little bit. There are cons to the filibuster; it is incredibly hard to get things done and laws passed. However, the pros weigh out the cons.

    [read less]

    No, the Senate should not reform the filibuster. Without the filibuster, the government could be overrun by one political party. The filibuster gives …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lillian from Missouri

    No, I do not believe we should reform the filibuster. The filibuster is a tactic used by the minority party to stall a vote to pass a bill. It is already heavily regulated and can be stopped by a 3/4 majority vote. The filibuster is an essential tool that gives the minority party some of the power back, it keeps everything in balance and promotes democracy. The filibuster is harmless and truly useful and should stay a part of government.

    [read less]

    No, I do not believe we should reform the filibuster. The filibuster is a tactic used by the minority party to stall a vote to pass a bill. It is alre…

    [read more]
    0
  • David from Virginia

    Should the Senate reform the filibuster? No, I do not believe that a reform to the filibuster is needed. The purpose of the filibuster is to prevent one party from gaining complete control over the country just because they hold the majority and it gives the party that currently holds the minority a chance to pass legislation as well as a way for them to block legislation.
    Another reason why the filibuster should not be reformed is that the legislative process would become so streamlined that politician’s party had majority could easily push agendas that are not in the best interests of the United States citizens. This could lead to corruption which could also lead to more issues in the future.
    If the filibuster was reformed could cause some issues that would cause some damages to the United States as a whole. If the filibuster was changed to a 51:49 ratio then the slightest majority would have an extreme advantage and if the President is on the side of the majority then the majority cannot lose at any point in the process. Such an example can be seen in the government right now in which the Democratic Party has 54 seats and the President while the Republican party only has 46 seats. This then would allow for some legislation to pass that would ramp up the tax rates for everyone and this could lead to the economy become weakened. This would also cause the Federal Reserve to print a large amount of money which would also increase the inflation rate. This could also happen in the inverse in which if the Republican Party got majority and the President on their side then they could potentially get rid of many social infrastructures.

    [read less]

    Should the Senate reform the filibuster? No, I do not believe that a reform to the filibuster is needed. The purpose of the filibuster is to prevent o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Savannah from Kentucky

    A filibuster is an essential part of the bicameral government we have today. The right to voice an opinion is crucial to a balanced government and preventing tyrannical rule. The filibuster has been a unique part of the senate since 1789 but was not officially called a filibuster till the late 19th century, the process of “killing the clock” of a bill is considered the senate’s nuclear weapon, and taking away that weapon would limit the checks and balances system. The most notable filibuster to date took place in 1975 with Storm Thurmond which lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes. He went on to conclude this day-long filibuster with “I expect to vote against the bill”. Even with the excruciatingly long filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which Thurund argued against, still ended up becoming approved. Even with filibusters the US senate can still overturn and go against any act presented to them making the filibuster not so powerful after all. To make the filibuster even weaker, the senate could close a filibuster with a ⅗ majority, or 60 representatives, cloter vote. So no, the US government should not make changes to the filibuster power, it is a well-rounded and balanced argumentative weapon that is an essential part of the bicameral and balanced government we have today.

    [read less]

    A filibuster is an essential part of the bicameral government we have today. The right to voice an opinion is crucial to a balanced government and pre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zachariah from Kentucky

    No, the Senate should not reform the Filibuster. This is due to the fact that it is quite an equal thing. 3 years ago Republicans tried to remove it. Now the Democrats are trying to remove it. It is always contested by the side who it is being used against. The Filibuster is important as it serves as a tool to stand against bills that they think are unjust or unequal. People think that the filibuster could be reformed by changing the majority ruling. But, in all honesty it would null void any previous actions as they all needed a supermajority. So why can’t they just get one now. But, as always it is up to the government to figure out their issues.

    [read less]

    No, the Senate should not reform the Filibuster. This is due to the fact that it is quite an equal thing. 3 years ago Republicans tried to remove it. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Danny from Kentucky

    I think that they shouldn’t reform the filibuster. It can allow anyone to decide on a vote and it allows others to think about a law. It allows everyone to give their opinion on the law too. Also, it seems like it is easy to get one passed considering you only need a 60% of the majority to vote on this law.

    [read less]

    I think that they shouldn’t reform the filibuster. It can allow anyone to decide on a vote and it allows others to think about a law. It allows ever…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mackenzie from Kentucky

    The filibuster is a tactic that’s only primary use is to stall the decision. Yet, a decision needs to be made. The sacrifice of the filibuster is greatly recognized, yet a super majority is not necessary for the point of the tactic to get across. Therefore, the senate should reform the filibuster to be a 51-49 majority rather than a 60-40 super majority. While it is a super effort to use the filibuster tactic in an argument, it is not worthy of bestowing the supermajority upon its strategy.

    [read less]

    The filibuster is a tactic that’s only primary use is to stall the decision. Yet, a decision needs to be made. The sacrifice of the filibuster is gr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jayden from Kentucky

    No, they should not reform the filibuster. This is because this allows the minority in the senate to have some power. If there was no filibuster, then the minority would basically have no say and be controlled 100% by the majority in the senate. This could potentially lead to a formation of a one-party state like seen in Nazi Germany because this would suppress the voices of the minorities in the senate. Also as stated in the first amendment to the Constitution, the people have the freedom of speech meaning they can talk about whatever they want against the government and this extends to every single American citizen including senators and every authority figure. No one should be exempt from the law and no one should have more laws against them.

    [read less]

    No, they should not reform the filibuster. This is because this allows the minority in the senate to have some power. If there was no filibuster, then…

    [read more]
    0
    • Brandon from Missouri

      No, because before the Senate voted on a subject, there was a means to ensure that minority views were heard and understood.

      0