>if the filibuster is removed what benefits will Americans see?
Justice
>which upcoming bills are threatened by filibuster?
best guess, all of them
>implementation to put an end?
push a senator for simple majority change
>How can move forward as safely as possible for people
did not realize adjusting filibuster was a safety hazard?
>important to discuss it
of course
>if discussions are not progressing >different approach may be necessary
Have the Dems adjust the filibuster now?
>>How can move forward as safely as possible for people
>did not realize adjusting filibuster was a safety hazard?
Key Potential Hazards and Arguments Against the ChangeIncreased Policy Volatility and Instability
Legislation could pass with narrow majorities (potentially just 51 votes, including the vice president's tiebreaker). Laws would then be more easily repealed or dramatically altered when the majority flips in future Congresses. This creates a "pendulum" effect where major policies (e.g., healthcare, taxes, gun laws, climate regulations, or social programs) swing wildly between administrations, undermining long-term stability, predictability for businesses/economy, and public trust in government.
Loss of Minority Party Protections and Incentives for Compromise
The 60-vote threshold forces the majority to negotiate with at least some members of the minority party to build a broader coalition. Dropping to 51 votes removes this pressure, allowing the majority party to pass highly partisan legislation without input from the other side. This could lead to more extreme laws, reduced bipartisanship, and greater polarization.
Risk of "Tyranny of the Majority"
Critics argue the Senate was deliberately designed (unlike the House) to slow down action, protect smaller states, and prevent hasty majorities from steamrolling minorities or regions. A simple-majority threshold shifts the Senate closer to the House's model, potentially eroding the chamber's unique "cooling saucer" role (as described by George Washington) and making it easier for temporary majorities to enact sweeping changes with minimal consensus.
Long-Term Institutional Damage and Retaliation Cycles
Once the filibuster is lowered or eliminated for legislation via the nuclear option, future majorities could further weaken Senate rules or traditions. Historical precedents (e.g., 2013 and 2017 changes lowering cloture to 51 for most judicial/executive nominees) show that precedents build: what starts limited often expands. This could erode the Senate's deliberative nature over time.
Potential for Abuse During Unified Government
When one party controls the presidency, House, and Senate (trifecta), a 51-vote threshold enables rapid passage of controversial agendas without broad support. While proponents see this as enabling action on popular priorities, opponents warn it risks overreach, backlash, and backlash-driven reversals.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/36b5c984fe69415899c0fed7217e0986
This could be an issue.
>>push a senator for simple majority change
>What are you thinking of doing?
Most easiest option would be to have the people "both parties" flood with calls demanding the end of the Majority Rule Filibuster and replace with the simple majority
but issues with that as well.
Key Potential Benefits
Changing the Senate filibuster's cloture threshold from 60 votes (supermajority) to 51 votes (simple majority) for most legislation is a highly debated reform, often supported by those frustrated with congressional gridlock. Proponents, including many Democrats and reform advocates, argue it would make the Senate more effective and democratic. Here are the top 5 commonly cited benefits, drawn from policy analyses and political arguments:
Reduces Gridlock and Enables Action on Priority Legislation
The current 60-vote requirement often leads to total obstruction, preventing even popular or urgently needed bills from advancing. Lowering to 51 votes would allow the majority party to pass its agenda more efficiently, breaking chronic stalemates on issues like infrastructure, climate change, healthcare, or voting rights.
Restores True Majority Rule and Democratic Responsiveness
In a democracy, the party that wins elections should be able to govern and implement its platform. The filibuster effectively gives a minority of 41 senators veto power, overriding the will of the electoral majority. A simple majority threshold aligns the Senate more closely with majoritarian principles, making government more accountable to voters.
Allows Passage of Popular Policies Blocked by Minority Obstruction
Many broadly supported reforms (e.g., background checks for guns, paid family leave, or immigration fixes) have majority backing in Congress and among the public but fail due to filibusters. Reform would clear the path for these measures, enabling Congress to address pressing national problems without needing near-unanimous consensus.
Increases Legislative Productivity and Efficiency
The modern filibuster (often "silent" without actual debate) has dramatically slowed the Senate's output compared to historical norms. Shifting to 51 votes would streamline the process, allowing more bills to reach votes and potentially leading to a more active, responsive legislative branch.
Counters Minority Overreach and Promotes Accountability
The filibuster has been used increasingly for partisan blockage rather than deliberation, tilting power toward the minority party (whichever it is). Eliminating or lowering the threshold prevents a small group from indefinitely stalling the elected majority's agenda, encouraging parties to campaign on achievable goals and face consequences at the ballot box.
I believe to be more an issue with Corruption than Democrats
It looks like a tool that has been weaponized imo
may need refinement and amendments
simple majority may be a start
https://x.com/i/grok/share/94b252106ee54a5e8eecbfea9dae008e
>The filibuster has been weaponized imo
>>8741 Seems to be a compromise solution "Talking Filibuster"
The most frequently proposed compromise reform is restoring the "talking filibuster" (requiring senators to actively hold the floor and speak to sustain a filibuster). Here's how it could work and why it's seen as a middle-ground solution:
>Key Changes Proposed:
Eliminate the "silent" or "drive-by" filibuster: A filibuster would only continue if senators are physically debating on the floor (as in classic movies like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington).
Shift the burden: Instead of the majority needing 60 votes to invoke cloture (end debate), the minority would need to muster 41 votes to sustain the filibuster and keep talking.
Once speakers yield the floor (e.g., from exhaustion or lack of participation), debate ends, and the bill proceeds to a simple-majority vote.
>Why This Could Reduce Overuse:
It raises the political and physical cost of filibustering: Senators would face public scrutiny, media coverage, and fatigue for blocking popular or routine bills, deterring frivolous use.
Routine or partisan obstruction would become rarer, reducing gridlock on non-controversial matters.
>Why It Preserves Minority Rights (Appealing to Defenders):
The filibuster remains intact for truly high-stakes issues where a minority is willing to "go to the mat" with sustained debate.
It maintains the Senate's deliberative tradition without dropping to pure 51-vote majority rule.
>Bipartisan Appeal:
Supported by figures like President Biden (in 2021 interviews), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR, who circulated detailed proposals), and some moderates.
Defenders of the filibuster (e.g., Sens. Manchin and Sinema in past cycles) have expressed openness to this over full elimination.
It's viewed as a "reform, not abolish" approach, with historical precedent before the 1970s rules changes made silent filibusters easy.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/b488a5458db5434bb2ca6f62c26d5dbc
>but do you think otherwise
yes, again it seems more of an abuse and it may be an easier step to change to "talking filibuster" as a middle ground for both parties to get behind.
>point our how each never get anything done because of the filibuster
>point out the overusage
>point out the benefits and downfalls
but yes, seems a great middle ground imo atm.
will reviw more in the am
also how many are under mind control with their actions? lots.