What Should It Take 60 Votes To Do In The Senate?

[Redress]

Once again the filibuster issue is in the news. This time it was a cloture vote to bring a gun control bill to the floor for debate. Note, this was not a vote on the bill itself, but on whether to debate the bill in essence. This raises again the interesting question of when it is appropriate to require 60 votes, and when a simple majority should be enough. It is not debatable that filibusters are increasing in frequency, nor is it debatable that democrats had taken part of that increase in frequency(both are documentable fact). It is not a partisan issue, but a procedural one. Right now democrats have a slim majority in the senate, but that could very easily change in 2 years, so remember that any tool that is being used for or against you might go the other way in the future.

Please choose all the times when you think a 60 vote majority should be required(or that the opposition party can call for if they choose).

 

[ashurbanipal]

I actually think anything the Senate or House do should require a 75% majority to pass, and a 25% minority to repeal. Laws that 25% of the people can do without shouldn't remain on the books. Also, after a few painful years, I think budget negotations and the like would take on a whole new character--they'd be a lot more reasonable.

 

[Superfly]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't know - when you filibuster everything, it loses it's power. I think a filibuster should be used for only the most egregious of issues brought before the Senate.

 

[Sarcogito]

If they are trying to pass a bill I don't like, then it should take a supermajority. If it is a bill I do like then a simple majority or less will suffice.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I actually think anything the Senate or House do should require a 75% majority to pass, and a 25% minority to repeal. Laws that 25% of the people can do without shouldn't remain on the books. Also, after a few painful years, I think budget negotations and the like would take on a whole new character--they'd be a lot more reasonable.

WOW! I never agree with you but I'm on board here. I like it!

 

[LaMidRighter]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't know - when you filibuster everything, it loses it's power. I think a filibuster should be used for only the most egregious of issues brought before the Senate.

True, if something is so rotten that it just needs to die on the floor then the filibuster should be on the table. If overused it does become nothing more than a cheap trick.

 

[LaMidRighter]

If they are trying to pass a bill I don't like, then it should take a supermajority. If it is a bill I do like then a simple majority or less will suffice.

I like making bills as difficult to pass as possible, that way we have a better shot of only things that are likely to be proper and necessary might get through. People complain about gridlock, but it does keep government expansion in check.

 

[Excon]

I actually think anything the Senate or House do should require a 75% majority to pass, and a 25% minority to repeal. Laws that 25% of the people can do without shouldn't remain on the books. Also, after a few painful years, I think budget negotations and the like would take on a whole new character--they'd be a lot more reasonable.

How does that make any sense?
75% to pass could just be repealed by the 25% that didn't vote for it? :doh

 

[molten_dragon]

I don't think the fillibuster should be allowed at all. If we want it to require 60% of the senate to pass something, we should amend the constitution to say that.

 

[jamesrage]

Once again the filibuster issue is in the news. This time it was a cloture vote to bring a gun control bill to the floor for debate. Note, this was not a vote on the bill itself, but on whether to debate the bill in essence. This raises again the interesting question of when it is appropriate to require 60 votes, and when a simple majority should be enough. It is not debatable that filibusters are increasing in frequency, nor is it debatable that democrats had taken part of that increase in frequency(both are documentable fact). It is not a partisan issue, but a procedural one. Right now democrats have a slim majority in the senate, but that could very easily change in 2 years, so remember that any tool that is being used for or against you might go the other way in the future.

Please choose all the times when you think a 60 vote majority should be required(or that the opposition party can call for if they choose).

For those who think filibusterer is a bad idea just remember that Obama will not always be president, nor will a left winger always be president. So I am pretty sure that if some conservative was president.Had a house and senate majority of those who agreed with him or her. You all would be glad to have that filibuster option. Especially if they wanted to ban gay marriage in all the states,wanted to ban abortion except to save the mother's life, wanted to ban sex change operations and made it legal to only recognize someone's gender by the genitalia that person was born with. You all would be calling,writing, emailing,texting,faxing or even showing up to the front door of your elected officials who agreed with you to filibuster the hell out of those bills.

 

[ashurbanipal]

How does that make any sense?
75% to pass could just be repealed by the 25% that didn't vote for it?

Yes, that is exactly the point. No one in Congress would be able to get anything done at all without genuine cooperation. If we have a nation left (I'm doubtful that we really do), compromise is still possible.