Harkin Reintroduces Filibuster Reform

I think the way voting should happen in the Senate is when there’s a question to be decided you ask who votes “yes” and who votes “no” and whichever side has more people on it wins. It works for the House of Representatives and the Hawaii State Senate and the French National Assembly and the Peoria City Council and the Supreme Court of the United States. But this would be an improvement:

Under Harkin’s bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.

Of course for many members there would be a hypocrisy problem:

“It was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business,” Reid wrote. “And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate … A filibuster is the minority’s way of not allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust debate, the Senate is crippled.”

A crippled Senate—imagine that!

At any rate, if it were up to me I would go well beyond a move to majority rule. The idea that “robust debate” takes place in the United States Senate in some kind of way that improves the lives of the American people is a pretty absurd conceit. I don’t think anyone could look at the series of floor speeches that happens in Congress and conclude that the “debate” taking place is accomplishing anything.