Yeah but how is giving up better than just making your opponent talk until they collapse?

It's not that they don't want to let the other people talk for a long time, it's that they don't want to be forced into a situation where they need to get a 3/5 majority. The Democrats have fewer than 60 seats in the Senate, so they need Republican support to get through a filibuster.

abge, there are two kinds of filibuster. One of them is the individual filibuster, where somebody has to talk until he collapses. Then the business of the Senate can proceed.

But if there are 41 people who agree with the 1, then he doesn't have to talk until he collapses. In the Senate, in addition to a Senator being able to talk as long as he wants once has the floor, there is no time limit on overall debate -- it goes until nobody wants to talk anymore, or else until something called cloture is invoked. It's cloture that requires 60 votes. If you don't get cloture, then you can't end debate and get to a vote -- the 41 people can keep debating. And they don't need to collapse -- they can talk for 20 minutes in turns, say, and then another one get up and say he wants to say something. You can never stop it, because you don't have the 60 votes.

For this reason, if you know you don't have the 60 votes and you know the other side will filibuster, there is not always much point making them do so.

OK, so maybe I'm a bit confused. Once the filibuster starts, they need 3/5 majority. Doesn't the filibuster end when the person stops talking?

@semck

OK Thank you. I didn't fully understand the 2nd type of filibuster. That clears things up.

Yes, the fillibuster ends by when the person stops, but by then everyone has gone home.

The real question is, once the fillibuster has ended, why doesn't the majority party go ahead and take up the bill and pass it anyway? (or force another fillibuster?)

Better question: INstead of fillibustering, why don't our elected representatives learn to compromise and, you know, actually represent the will of the people that elected them?

Oh...<blublublublublublublublublublub...> Now I'm just talking nonsense...

Right, the 60 votes is for the cloture. I had forgotten the distinction. My apologies for causing confusion.

I believe obi explains filibustering quite succinctly. Basically it's when you start talking and see if you then fall asleep before your audience.

So, do people think the 2nd way makes sense? The standard filibuster seems like a pretty good check to me. The 2nd one seems like craziness. Has the rule changed recently or is it just being abused more frequently?

"The real question is, once the fillibuster has ended, why doesn't the majority party go ahead and take up the bill and pass it anyway? (or force another fillibuster?)"

Because they can't, if there are 41 people who don't want them to. See above.

"Better question: INstead of fillibustering, why don't our elected representatives learn to compromise and, you know, actually represent the will of the people that elected them?"

Fillibustering *is* a way to force compromise. Without it, the minority (which may feel that it does represent the will of the people on a particular issue) would have no leverage.

But perhaps you meant to ask why we've reached a place where the filibusters actually occur to stop legislation now, instead of a compromise being negotiated after the use of it. That's a good question.

The second one IS the "standard filibuster," abge -- the individual filibuster is very rare.

And no, the rules haven't changed lately, though they did change back in the 70s in ways that did tend to increase filibusters somewhat by making them less impactful and dramatic.

I think it makes sense, though I think the 70s rules should be rolled back so that using the filibuster causes more inconvenience and you do have to halt Senate business. I think it's an important check that the minority can and should use when the majority is doing something reckless and opposed to the will of the American people, but I think it should be reserved for important occasions.

(As I said above, it's an important source of minority leverage and thus -- in theory -- compromise in American politics).

semck - Tip O'Oneal and Ronald Reagan - mortal enemies...sat down at the table and compromised. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich...sat down at the table and compromised.

Every single last representative of all parties needs to be thrown out IN THE PRIMARIES in 2014.

"Every single last representative of all parties needs to be thrown out IN THE PRIMARIES in 2014."

Nonsense. We have a representative government that takes a majority vote to get things done. However good one Congressperson may be, he can get little done if a majority are irresponsible. As always, the record of each legislator should be considered, and those who have acted badly (a lot of them in both parties, but not all) should be thrown out.

blah blah blah....you are the problem, semck.

Being a representative was never intended to be a life-time job. Throw 'em all out - a purge would do this nation well. 2/3 of the Senate will remain....the rest of the bums can go find real jobs and suffer with the rest of us.

"Being a representative was never intended to be a life-time job."

That's a myth one runs across frequently, but there's little to no evidence that it's true. A few of the founders opposed career politicians; most did not.

That was well explained all around semck.

@krellin, can't say I disagree, if the government shuts down I personally feel that immediate reelections should be required for both houses. Then the people get to decide which side they are supporting with their actions (yes I know this is a way oversimplified way of thinking about it)

@Abge: if a bill is filibustered it requires 60 votes to pass. If a bill isn't filibustered it requires 51. There are currently 47 republicans in the senate, so if a filibuster happens, the republicans have enough votes to block a bill.

By threatening to filibuster you can, as the minority party, force some concessions on the other party.

Can someone explain Fili...delphia, where I am it is a soft white cheese (can come with a variety of flavours such as chives or onions) or a dying aids victim, but what does it mean to you?

One suspects that if the Republicans were forced to explain why they held such horrible positions on the issues that they were threatening to filibuster, there would be far fewer that would threaten to filibuster.

mendax...<sigh...> You realize the filibuster is not the exclusive tool of the Republicans, don't you? When the Republicans controlled the Senate, the Democrats filibustered all the time...you *do* realize this, yes?

Don't be such a mindless partisan hack.

And for the record, mendax, despite the mainstream media failing to report it, in the last couple of filibusters the Senators described *exactly* what their stance was on the issues during their time on the floor. You know, maybe if you actually paid attention to what is going on, instead of getting your information from partisan hack websites, you would be a better informed human being. Just saying...

I used to know this, but I looked it up to make sure, and here's my understanding:

-It takes 16 senators to call for a vote to end debate.
-After calling to end debate, the cloture vote must be held within 30 hours of 16 senators moving for cloture. During these 30 hours, lots of things can happen including roll call votes and quorum calls, but individual Senators are permitted only 1 hour each to speak.
-Once the 30 hours are up, a 3/5 majority is needed to invoke cloture. Failing to vote for cloture is equivalent to vote against it, ie, you need 60 votes to end it, regardless of how many votes show up for the other side (unless there are vacancies in the Senate).

So functionally, this means that if there are not 60 votes for cloture, any business in the Senate can be delayed indefinitely. Since it takes a full day to hold a vote on cloture (ie the 30 hours), it is pretty costly to actually go ahead with a cloture vote that is bound to fail if there are known to be fewer than 60 votes. In practice, then, a credible threat to filibuster imposes a 60-vote supermajority requirement on anything 41 senators want.

@mendax: I don't think the issue is that Republicans can keep their positions a secret. It's more that, procedurally, since they aren't even required to have their caucus in the Senate chambers, or to personally do anything at all, so the cost of filibustering is very low.

But I think, even more importantly, it is just ridiculous for a minority to be able to impose a supermajority requirement on any of the regular business of the Senate on a whim.

The Democrats just eliminated the filibuster from the Senate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-usa-senate-nominees-vote-idUSBRE9AK11420131121

Can we lock this thread now?

It's only gone for executive branch nominees (bizarre that executive branch nominees even needed Senate confirmation in the first place) and judicial nominees (excluding SCOTUS). So it's still unlikely that the Senate will make any laws.

That's just fine...I think we are full up - to - overflowing with laws, half of which we don't seem to want to enforce anyway.

This is a travesty. Now Obama can appoint whoever he wants with no consequences. To hell with Congressional oversight, right? We have a bona fide tyrant on our hands.

Stackleberg how is it bizarre? Separation and balance of powers is key to our system. congressional oversight of the executive is essential.