Glenn Greenwald has written up yet another damning critique of Democrats' dishonest attempts to claim public support for a public option while doing everything they can to kill it.
I'll quote three paragraphs, the first ones, in Greenwald's column. It's revealing how the distraction and circus that is the furor over eliminating the filibuster provided cover for senators looking for any excuse they can muster to prevent real health care reform, and for Democratic partisans falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for "filibuster reform," arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing that the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation -- where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required -- but Obama loyalists scorned that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.
But all those claims were put to the test -- all those bluffs were called -- once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill. That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60 votes) -- including the addition of the public option -- would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed -- a "majority rule" system -- they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.
All of that was bad enough, but now the scam is getting even more extreme, more transparent. Faced with the dilemma of how they could possibly justify their year-long claimed support for the public option only now to fail to enact it, more and more Democratic Senators were pressured into signing a letter supporting the enactment of the public option through reconciliation; that number is now above 40, and is rapidly approaching 50. In other words, there is a serious possibility that the Senate might enact a public option if there is a vote on it, because it's very difficult for these Senators to vote "No" after pretending all year long -- on the record -- that they supported it. In fact, The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim yesterday wrote: "the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It's only a matter of will."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on Wednesday to take a serious look at revising the filibuster rules at the beginning of the next Congress, calling the current level of obstruction in the Senate unacceptable.
And in a reflection of the party's commitment to changing the parliamentary rules, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) followed the majority leader by saying that his committee would address the topic soon.
"The rules committee is going to start holding hearings on how to undo the filibuster rule," said Schumer, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee. The New York Democrat told the Huffington Post after the speech that the hearings would take place two or three weeks from now.
I was invited to this summit, but I didn't go because I had too much work and was out of energy. I wanted to talk filibuster reform with Senators, and get an idea of who was on board, but it looks like I wasn't needed for that.
Expect more Senators to start going on record for filibuster reform, both today and in two or three weeks when the hearings start. The dam is breaking wide open. This is no longer a quixotic campaign--it is very winnable.
Here is the current filibuster reform whip count:
****
Filibuster Reform Whip Count Among relevant current and potential Senators, there are at least 21, and as many as 26, supporters of reform
50 Senators who are currently safe bets for being in Senate in 2011
I need your help. Which states can be governed by a simple majority? If the current US Senate rules are so great, you'd expect them to be replicated in lots of States right? And if any state does dare entrust its governance to the tyranny of the bi-cameral legislature, with their penchant for spending less on redistribution, well we should expect those states to be doing very poorly right, what with all the crazy laws and socialism they will have.
It turns out this is surprisingly hard to answer. The National Conference of State Legislatures produces items like this and this which highlight the complexity of this topic. I started out reading various State senate rules but states like California, with its two-thirds budget requirement mean that majority rule isn't as simple as the absence of a filibuster.
Inside I will try and lay out an approach to answer this.
[Ezra Klein:] It's been reported that you're meeting with other senators to come up with reforms to the Senate rules. What would those look like?
[Jeff Merkley:] Discussions are really at the starting point. To give you a sense of some of the ideas, though, one question we're asking is how do you get two-thirds of the body to agree to change the rules when there's immediate pressure for the minority to protect themselves? Your rule changes could kick in in 6 to 8 years. Or you could have rule changes that are designed to trigger when the two sides are more or less even. So when there's a 55-45 majority, it wouldn't kick in, but it would at 52-48. Or think about with nominations. We're really paralyzing the executive branch. This may be a conversation that doesn't ripen for awhile, but each time I mention to a senator that we're doing this, they say thank goodness.
I say thank goodness, too. That makes three more Senators in two days. The momentum continues! This is getting less quixotic by the day.
The updated whip count chart can be found here. Depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections, there are now at least 20 Senators who will be back in 2011 who are in favor of reform, and as many as 24.
"I was raised in a country where I thought the majority ruled. This is what I hear from my constituents in Maryland. Every single thing we want to do to help people is stopped by the filibuster. Job reform is stopped by the filibuster. Health reform is stopped by the filibuster.
"But when all is said is done, more gets said than gets done. The filibuster means that in order to get something done you need 60 votes. It protects the rights of the minority.
"But it is not being used as intended. It's a dated rule from another century. I'm done with it."
Mikulski is actually becoming a co-sponsor of Tom Harkin's 51-vote Senate proposal, not just a halfway measure of reform. She is a particularly important supporter too, as she voted against it in 1995. So, not only did she flip, but she shows that other Senators can flip, too.
This is the second day in a row with a new supporter of reform. The momentum continues! Here is the new whip count:
Filibuster Reform Whip Count Among relevant current and potential Senators, there are at least 20, and as many as 24, supporters of reform
50 Senators who are currently safe bets for being in Senate in 2011
Michael Bennet is having a good couple of weeks. First, he starts a letter on including the public option in the budget reconciliation "fix" to the Senate heath reform bill which 34 Senators have signed. Now, he is proposing both lobbying and filibuster reform:
Joining a growing number of lawmakers angry at Washington, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet today will announce an ambitious set of reforms to change many of the rules under which his colleagues work, including an effort to restrict earmarks and limit the filibuster.(...)
But the kicker is the call to restructure the filibuster, a tool that has been wielded with devastating effect in the past year by Republicans and moderate Democrats.
Bennet, who is up for election this fall and faces a primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff, would reduce the majority required to overcome a filibuster to 55 votes after specific conditions were met.
The 51-vote Senate proposals given by Senators Tom Harkin and Tom Udall are preferred. However, as long as there are 51 Senators in favor of some sort of reform on the first day the Senate is in session in 2011, then there will be some sort of reform. And even some sort of reform is a very good thing.
Yeah, I'm with Red State, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrisey and Erick Erickson. Where does Roll Call and the rest of the lamestream media get off calling Bunning's persistent use of a procedural tactic to block a vote on legislation, a "filibuster"?
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
Clearly this term has a specific, narrow legal meaning and only refers to what happens when between 41 and 49 Senators vote "no" on a cloture motion. That's been Senate tradition since the founders 1975!
Jim Bunning has ended his filibuster of unemployment and COBRA benefits extensions:
Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ky.) one-man filibuster ended on Tuesday.
Bunning agreed to stop blocking legislation to extend benefits and COBRA health plan subsidies to the unemployed after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) agreed to allow him a vote on an amendment to pay for the $10 billion bill.
It's the same deal Bunning was offered last week, but Bunning at the time decided to continue his fight. He'd been holding up an extension of the benefits since Thursday.
Andrew Stettner of NELP says that, no matter what, some 205,000 people won't get a check this week, since it takes anywhere from two to six weeks for the states to get their bureaucracies geared up. "We've already crossed the Rubicon. Now, we have to play catch-up," he says.
With that 2-6 week delay, this could be extended pain for hundreds of thousands of Americans.
I'd really like to hear all the principled defenses of the filibuster now. Better yet, I dare someone to defend the filibuster to one of those hundreds of thousands of Americans.
This won't be the last time that a Republican like Bunning, assisted by a handful of true wingnut Senators, does something like this. It is time to end the filibuster.
Update--Senate leadership will use Bunning to combat Republican outcry against using reconciliation to finish health reform: A Senate Democratic leadership aide writes in to say:
Bunning lifted the curtain on the great lengths that Republicans go to drag out every single action taken by the Senate, no matter how routine. This is why we need to return to an era of more up or down votes and fewer filibusters. It's why all options are on the table moving forward, including reconciliation.
Glad to see they are willing to take steps against filibusters in Bunning's wake.
This morning, Democrats used some of their time on the floor of the Senate to plead with Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) to drop his objection to extending unemployment benefits and COBRA assistance, fixing a 21% cut in Medicare payments, and continuing funding for numerous federal transportation projects whose suspension has left 2,000 workers on furlough. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) put the number of unemployed workers affected at around 400,000 nationwide and said the COBRA assistance would affect 500,000.
Slowly but surely, more current and potential Senators are coming out in favor of reforming Senate rules regarding the filibuster. Greg Sargent gets the quote from Sanders:
Separately, Sanders told me in the Senate hallway that he's "absolutely on board" with filibuster reform. "We've gotta reform it," Sanders said. "The present situation leads to dysfunctionality."
"I may well support the Harkin effort," Sanders added. "But if not that, some other effort."
For those who don't remember, the Harkin effort effectively means a 51-vote Senate. However, we are also counting supporters of any sort of filibuster reform, including Senators like Robert Byrd who want to keep the filibuster but no longer make it "painless."
In addition to Sanders, Ohio Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, who is running for Senate in Ohio, also came out in favor of reform today. From Fisher's campaign website:
End the Filibuster
Washington is broken - and the filibuster is being abused, halting progress on the big issues facing our nation.
I believe we should abolish the filibuster. If you agree, please join me by signing our petition in support of filibuster reform today!
PETITION TEXT:
I support ending the filibuster, which has been repeatedly abused by Washington Republicans to paralyze Congress and halt progress on the big issues facing our nation.
Ohio is a winnable Senate campaign, so this is meaningful. Also, I will attempt to contact Fisher's primary opponent, Jennifer Brunner, to see where she stands on filibuster reform.
With these new additions, here are the current supporters for filibuster reform:
*****
Filibuster Reform Whip Count 50 Senators who are currently safe bets for being in Senate in 2011
For a supposedly quixotic effort, changing filibuster rules has a surprising number of supporters from all over the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party. We are going to be more than halfway to the necessary supporters before the end of the month.
Jim Bunning is continuing to filibuster legislation that would extend unemployment and COBRA benefits for 1.2 million people. The filibuster has now gone to 11:
Sen. Durbin asked for unanimous consent for the 11th time to extend unemployment benefits. #Bunning objected
In addition to ending unemployment and COBRA benefits for 1.2 million Americans, this filibuster has also resulted in "a 21 percent fee reduction to doctors seeing Medicare patients starting today."
Politically speaking, Bunning is not going to be hurt by this, as he is leaving the Senate. Further, Republicans, even the ones assisting Bunning, are not going to be hurt by this either, because no one friggin' understands Senate procedure.
Democrats are in charge, and so they are going to be hurt by this. Let me pull out my flow chart again:
As this continues, worries about the appearance of hypocrisy or the need for a "deliberative" legislative body ring increasingly hollow. A lot of people are getting really hurt by Senate procedure.
Update--more specifics on the damage being caused: The White House emails more specifics on the damage this filibuster is causing:
If Emergency Unemployment Compensation and full federal funding for the Extended Benefit program are not extended, 400,000 Americans will lose unemployment benefits during the first weeks in March. By May, nearly 3 million people could be left without these benefits.(...)
If the extension is not approved, an estimated 500,000 workers who lose their jobs will be ineligible for subsidies to cover the cost of health care over this month. Over the rest of 2010, an estimated 5 million workers will be ineligible for the Recovery Act COBRA subsidy that covers 65 percent of the cost of coverage. Without this assistance, many of these families will be forced to join the ranks of the uninsured.
What they do not have to worry about are Republican attacks over the use of the budget reconciliation process. This is because no one friggin' understands Senate procedure, and the use of any sort of that procedure is never going to result in any significant blowback from the American people.
Over the last month, mainly by citing polls, I have made quite a few arguments that the country does not understand, or really care about, Senate process. However, leaving polls aside for the moment, consider an exchange I had with former President Bill Clinton about this subject back in September. Even he didn't understand Senate process (more in the extended entry):
Using Senate procedure to cut off unemployment benefits to 1.2 million people is a reprehensible move. It is also a political move that will do real damage to Democrats. Here is a flow chart I drew up to illustrate the problem:
With the country unhappy, most voters will blame national problems on the current governing party: Democrats. Additionally, the country does not understand, or really care about, Senate procedure such as the filibuster. As such, a handful of Republican Senators can, if they are feeling sufficiently spiteful and / or Machiavellian, use arcane Senate procedure to cut off unemployment insurance to over one million Americans, and actually get Democrats blamed for it.
Faced with this sort of opposition, the only non-suicidal response from the governing party is to change the Senate rules. Given how much is at stake, and how many people are suffering, none of us should give a flying gastro-rectal event about a couple of negative news cycles, and / or bizarre arguments about the need for a "deliberative" governing body.
Change. The. Rules. If you are with me, sign up to Open Left's email list. We will be taking regular action on this over the next ten months.
The Hill is reporting the Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), the longest serving member of the Senate, sent a "Dear Colleague" letter opposing filibuster reform. Here is an except from the letter:
"I am sympathetic to frustrations about the Senate's rules, but those frustrations are nothing new," Byrd wrote. "However, I believe that efforts to change or reinterpret the rules in order to facilitate expeditious action by a simple majority, while popular, are grossly misguided."
Upon first glance, that certainly sounds like a blow to filibuster reform. However, its not. This is because, later in the same letter, Senator Byrd actually advocates for filibuster reform:
"Senators are obliged to exercise their best judgment when invoking their right to extended debate," Byrd said. " They should also be obliged to actually filibuster - that is, go to the floor and talk, instead of finding less strenuous ways to accomplish the same end."
Byrd argues that Senators should be forced to actually talk on the floor. Such an obligation would be a departure from the current "painless filibuster," where Senators are not obligated to talk in order to sustain the filibuster. After extensive research into the matter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concluded that current Senate rules do not obligate filibustering Senators to engage in a talk-a-thon:
Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."
So, by declaring that filibustering Senators must be forced to continuously talk on the Senate floor in order to maintain the filibuster, Senator Byrd actually is advocating for filibuster reform.
Granted, this is not the filibuster reform for which I am advocating. Personally, I want the Harkin plan, which would allow 40 Senators to delay legislation for a few days, but not ultimately stop it.
Still, Byrd is advocating for filibuster reform of a sort. And, as long as there are 51 Democratic Senators (including Vice-President Biden) in favor of some type of filibuster reform on January 3rd, 2011, then there will be filibuster reform. With Robert Byrd, we just hit #20. Here are all of them:
While the Senate health reform reconciliation whip count is taking priority right now, this morning brings an important update in the filibuster reform whip count. Two of the three leading Democratic candidates for North Carolina Senate, Elaine Marshall and Cal Cunningham, have both made public statements of support for filibuster reform.
It's time to end the filibuster in its current form. If you agree, sign my online petition to tell our elected and party leaders it's time to change the filibuster.
I asked someone in the Marshall camp to for a response to this email, and received the following reply:
Her statement is we need to fix the filibuster. Pretty much the same thing that Cunningham is saying. At a joint candidate appearance last week, she mentioned it, Cal didn't. He's late to the game.
To which the Cunningham campaign responded:
Cal Cunningham discussed reforming the filibuster in this interview taped on January 20.
Democratic candidates trying to one up each other on the filibuster? I like where this is going!
To be sure, neither Marshall nor Cunningham is by any means certain to be in the Senate next year when the crucial vote takes place in the first week of January. Still, North Carolina is a very winnable campaign, as both Cunningham and Marshall lead incumbent Republican Richard Burr among voters who have an opinion of either Marshall or Cunningham.
On the first day in is in session in 2011, the Senate will be able to change its rules with a simple majority vote (51). As such, we have been tracking support in the Democratic caucus for reforming the filibuster.
To date, 11 members of the Democratic Senate caucus--all of whom are 99%+ certain to return in 2011--support a majority-controlled Senate requiring only 51 votes to pass legislation. Further, 9 other members of the caucus support some other, often unspecified, type of reform to the filibuster rule. That is already 20 in favor of some type of reform.
Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd, two Senators who won't be in the Senate for the crucial vote next year, have also come out with their positions. Since they are leaving the Senate this is purely academic, but it still demonstrates an interesting lesson: filibuster reform is not supported only by progressives. In this case, the famously centrist Evan Bayh favors filibuster reform, while the more progressive Dodd opposes any change.
I think it's something we need to do, perhaps looking at changing the threshold once again, down to 55. Perhaps saying that, Administration appointees, other than the very highest ones, should not be subject to the filibuster. Because it's just brought the process to a halt, and the public is suffering. So the minority needs to have a right. I think that's important. But the public has a right to see its business done. And not routinely allow a small minority to keep us from addressing the great issues that face this country. I think the filibuster absolutely needs to be changed.
The campaign for filibuster reform is proving to be less dominated by progressive Senators than the original campaign for the public option:
21 current and future Senators have now come out in favor of some sort of reform. Seven of those 21, or 33%, are either members of Evan Bayh's "Moderate Working Group" (Conservadems) or of the Senate New Democratic caucus. That is roughly the same percentage of Conservadems and New Dems in the overall Senate Democratic caucus (22 of 59, or 37%).
By comparison, among the original 28 supporters of the public option in the Senate, only three were either Conservadems or New Dems. That is only an 11% representation for those two groups, far below their overall percentage of the Senate caucus.
Filibuster reform has diverse ideological support within the Democratic Party. Don't assume that just because a Senator is on the right-wing of the party that s/he will be opposed to this campaign.
More momentum for the filibuster reform whip count this evening. Mike Lux has received word from Senator Tim Johnson's Chief of Staff that Senator Johnson is a supporter. That makes an even dozen eleven members of the Democratic caucus supportive of a majority-rules Senate:
Filibuster Reform Whip Count 51 members of the Democratic caucus currently with a 100% chance of being in the Senate in 2011
No current statement (23): Cantwell (WA); Cardin (MD); Carper (DE); Franken (MN); Gillibrand (NY); Hagan (NC); Klobuchar (MN); Landrieu (LA); McCaskill (MO); Menendez (NJ); Nelson (NE); Nelson (FL); Reed (RI); Rockefeller (WV); Schumer (NY); Stabenow (MI); Tester (MT); Udall (CO); Warner (VA); Webb (VA); Whitehouse (RI); Wyden (OR); Sanders (VT)
(Whip count among Senators, both current and incoming, in tough election fights can be found in the extended entry.)
Take note of how three of the twelve eleven current filibuster reform supporters are members of Evan Bayh's Moderate Working Group, aka the Conservadems. Those three are Mark Begich, Joe Lieberman and Jeanne Shaheen.
By comparison, among the original 28 Senators who stated they supported the public option back in May of 2009, there were only two Conservadems and one member of the Senate New Democratic coalition. Thus, at the start of this campaign, filibuster reform actually has more conservative and moderate Democratic support than the public option did at the start of that campaign. This is even though the filibuster reform campaign starts with only 12 11 supporters, while the public option campaign started with 28.
Support for reform is not just coming from the more progressive members of the Democratic Senate caucus. And, as we found out on Friday, it as has the support of Dick Durbin, who is one of only three Democrats who could be majority leader in 2011.
Broad ideological support, and potential leadership support. This campaign may be a longshot, but it sure is building a solid foundation.
Supporters of filibuster reform scored a big catch today, as Senate #2 Dick Durbin came out in favor of Tom Harkin's effort to reform the filibuster. Additionally, Greg Sargent reports that Senator Durbin is working with other members of the Senate Democratic caucus to reform the filibuster:
Durbin spokesman Joe Shoemaker confirms to me that the Senator supports the new effort, which was unveiled yesterday by Senators Tom Harkin and Jeanne Shaheen.
The Harkin proposal would officially amend the process by which a filibuster is broken, allowing a four-step process that could eventually allow it to be broken by a majority vote. The first vote would require 60 votes to break the filibuster, followed by motions requiring 57, 54, and finally, 51 votes.
The key is that Durbin is apparently playing an active role in backing the Harkin effort. A senior leadership aide tells me Durbin is "in talks with a number of other Democratic senators regarding possible changes to Senate rules."
This is significant for two main reasons:
Durbin could be Majority Leader next year. If Harry Reid is defeated for re-election in November, and Democrats retain their majority, then Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer are the two most likely candidates to replace Reid as Majority Leader. Thus, one of the three Democrats who will potentially be Majority Leader on the first day the Senate is in session in 2011 (when only 51 votes are required to change Senate rules) now supports filibuster reform. The backing of the Majority Leader is necessary for success in the filibuster reform campaign.
Public supporters of filibuster reform now outnumber public opponents of filibuster reform in the Senate Democratic caucus. According to the Filibuster Reform Whip Count we started back on Wednesday, Durbin becomes the 11th Democratic Senator in favor of reform that would ultimately allow any legislation to pass the Senate with 51 votes unless the Constitution explicitly forbids it. By comparison, only 10 members of the Democratic Senate caucus are still clearly on record opposing this plan.
Among the 51 Democratic Senators (a number that includes (Vice-President Biden) who are either not up for re-election or whom polling currently gives a 100% of return (or first entry) in 2011, there are now 11 supporters, 8 "maybes" and 8 opponents.
Filibuster Reform Whip Count 51 members of the Democratic caucus currently with a 100% chance of being in the Senate in 2011
No current statement (24): Cantwell (WA); Cardin (MD); Carper (DE); Franken (MN); Gillibrand (NY); Hagan (NC); Johnson (SD); Klobuchar (MN); Landrieu (LA); McCaskill (MO); Menendez (NJ); Nelson (NE); Nelson (FL); Reed (RI); Rockefeller (WV); Schumer (NY); Stabenow (MI); Tester (MT); Udall (CO); Warner (VA); Webb (VA); Whitehouse (RI); Wyden (OR); Sanders (VT)
Winning this campaign is going to require 51 votes, which means convincing a lot of undecided Senators, flipping some Senators who are currently "no", and also getting some incoming / endangered members on board. It is certainly a tall task, but getting Dick Durbin provides real momentum. I don't care how quixotic people think it is--this is a winnable campaign.
(You guys are providing great updates in the comments. Please keep them coming! We are making real progress on the whip count - promoted by Chris Bowers)
Filibuster reform whip count Yes: 10
Maybe: 9
No: 10
Unknown: 35 --Looking only at current and potential members of the Democratic Senate caucus
--Requirements for "yes": support majority vote to pass all legislation not specifically detailed in Constitution
****
Slowly but surely, talk of filibuster reform is entering the Democratic mainstream. To monitor the progress of support for filibuster reform, Open Left has produced the first ever filibuster reform whip count of current and potential Democratic Senators.
The whip count in the extended entry. You can participate in the whip count by finding public statements on filibuster reform from any Senators who will, or might, be in the Democratic Senate caucus in 2011.
Before reading that whip count, keep the following two points in mind:
It is possible to reform the filibuster. Senate rules regarding the filibuster were changed in both 1917 and 1975. Further, it was nearly abolished in 2005. As many as 39 current Senators have favored reforming the filibuster at some point over the last 15 years. (This includes the 10 Democrats listed below, Barbara Boxer, and the 29 Republicans not in the Gang of 14 who were serving in the Senate as Republicans in 2005).
The current version of the filibuster is not an indelible part of the United States Senate. It can, and has been, changed throughout time. We can change it again.
The Senate should function by majority vote. While the filibuster makes it easier for progressives to block conservative legislation in the Senate, it is impossible to ever have enough Democratic Senators to form a progressive super-majority in the Senate. For progressives, eliminating the filibuster is preferable to keeping it.
Even leaving ideology aside for the moment, the filibuster has several negative effects on our democracy. It makes the Senate more powerful than the House, even though the House is actually elected by the people. It means that elections have almost no consequences, and voters are unable to significantly change United States policy. Its excruciating slowness leaves hundreds of key government positions vacant for long stretches of time. The only minority rights it ultimately protects are those of extremely powerful corporations. And, simply put, it is anti-democratic.
The filibuster can be reformed. The Senate should operate by majority vote.
You can find the filibuster reform whip count in the extended entry. Please check it out, and join in the information gathering process.
