tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post1556336131207669058..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: "Change in Behavior, Not a Change in Rules"Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64461976661358807172012-12-15T13:03:11.125-06:002012-12-15T13:03:11.125-06:00I've been slowly coming round to your position...I've been slowly coming round to your position on the filibuster, that it shouldn't be entirely eliminated, but you've hit upon here what I think is the main problem. That is regard to behaviors and norms regarding its use, and for me, its tied into how the parties are behaving much more like ones in parliamentary systems. So now the filibuster becomes too easy of a weapon to be used, because unless one party has 60 seats, it's simple to find 40 opposition members to oppose something just for the sake of it.<br /><br />The other thing is there are many veto points in the US system to prevent radical change. Hence, I don't think the filibuster is all that necessary now. Besides, there are plenty of other US Senate rules to clog up the works. The filibuster, as used now is unsustainable and unless you can codify its use for "just important bills" then I think it has to go. Maybe you could give it a number of times a session it could be used, but as you've said, once it becomes entrenched that the US Senate is a 60-vote body, there is no going back until the filibuster is gone altogether. And if the Senate became like the House, I don't think that'll be a bad thing. Other countries do it and it all works out fine.Yaramah Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11545126290793710143noreply@blogger.com