Reforming the filibuster without abolishing it

[Indy Texas]

Bipartisan Filibusters

Filibusters cannot be sustained unless they are bipartisan. At least one member from each Senate caucus must vote against cloture.

This would eliminate the possibility of filibustering bills for purely partisan reasons. It would leave open the possibility of filibustering bills where there is a good faith objection for reasons that transcend party lines (ex. if a group of libertarian Republicans and progressive Democrats wanted to filibuster a bill curtailing civil liberties or authorizing military involvement).

Popular Filibusters

This attempts to remedy the population skew of the Senate and ensure that senators elected by a small minority of the population cannot thwart legislation by senators representing the overwhelming majority of the country's population.

Each senator would be allocated one half of their state's population as of the most recent Census. In order for a filibuster to be sustained, the senators voting against cloture would have to cumulatively represent a majority of the US population.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs are probably gonna have 48 to 50 seats anyways and Unemployment stimulus is gonna be the topic of conversation in the next Congress. Unemployment benefits foster a dependency, and the Rs are gonna insist not to keep giving checks and Bob Casey Jr, Sinema and Manchin are on record for not supporting continued unemployment stimulus, a compromise is apt to come out of it

[Former President tack50]

I prefer abolishing the filibuster as it is profoundly undemocratic and harms the ability of Congress to do stuff. Bipartisan filibusters are fine but I don't think there would be many of them. Popular filibusters though are a very bad idea. The population skew of the Senate is a feature, not a bug.

[Del Tachi]

The second option flagrantly violates the "one state, one vote" ethos of the Senate, so I can't support it

The first option is also ridiculous.  49 Senate Democrats in lockstep could never block a vote in a Senate controlled by 51 Republicans...but 8 fewer senators (40 Senate Republicans and 1 Senate Democrat) could prevent a vote indefinitely?  Plus, this would also require enshrining party caucuses into the Standing Rules of the Senate, thus really hamstringing future independents.  And couldn't senators just periodically switch parties to get around this rule?

[politics_king]

Just get rid of the filibuster, it's not needed anymore just like the electoral college.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Go back to speaking filibusters and end the silent filibuster. That is the best answer.

[KaiserDave]

Go back to speaking filibusters and end the silent filibuster. That is the best answer.

This^

Number one is alright but flawed, number two..no no no.

[Hope For A New Era]

The US political system requires a lot more cooperation between parties than those of many other Western democracies, which makes the impact of polarization particularly damaging here. Polarization was artificially low in the US for much of the 20th century because the Cold War created an ongoing small "rally around the flag" effect. When that pressure was removed in the 1990s, polarization dramatically increased, to a level that was more "normal" around the world. Then, the media and politicians encouraged it and emphasized it further, because at the time it benefited them, resulting in the sky-high polarization of today. Now, during a crisis, we are paying the price.

The only way to continue to have a functioning government, at least until we can get polarization back under control, is to abolish the filibuster.

Hopefully the impeachment was polarization's high point for a generation. I don't think the country can survive much more strain than that.