That’s a loaded question. Any time any party has a 60 vote (super majority) they would not vote to eliminate it. My preference and I believe those of the majority voters would be for a balance of power and this can be achieved only if no party has a 60 vote majority. That’s why I’m voting in November and will continue to do so–for republicans and independents so that in January of 2011 at least one branch of government will be in republican hands. This is a true balance of power.

I am sure that this is a partisan issue. IF the Republicans held a 60 vote majority, then the polls would reflect that in the opposite direction . The lack of progress in Congress has more to do with the lack of bipartisanship rather than the cloture rule.

The Senate has always been a great deliberative body because of rules like cloture. Consensus is the goal of democracy and the decorum of the Senate haD facilitated the attainment of some level of agreement. The Senate, unlike the House, was a place where great statesmen could disgree on principle, but find some practical meddle ground. That’s not true today. Watching debate on C-SPAN, you can see the contempt that some Members hold for their opposition. Rather than discussing the issues, the Senators read prepared statements, written by their staffs, and do not even pretend to pay attention to the other side’s views. The Senate used to be a place where real debate occurred; today the canned messages fly across the aisle and do not hit anyone’s consciousness.

Cloture is not a problem. The Members are.

I agree with you, #3, but the solution should be to force reasoned debate on the issues. Elimination of the necessity of having 60 votes to pass anything was not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. As I’m sure you know, Republicans have used the threat of filibuster more than it was used over a period of two decades. Obama won last November with the largest landslide since Reagan. Back then, the major parties cooperated more than now. I think elections should have consequences. The Democrats gave Bush most of his choices including his Supreme Court nominees with less of a holdup than now and he certainly never won a true mandate. You know about 2000. His slim win in 2004 was the smallest of any in wartime.

Please, please, please Hal, let’s be honest cloture has been used by both parties and it is THE mechanism that forces the party in control to seek consensus. I must be having severe memory problems, but I seem to recall the Supreme Court nominees of President Bush were among the longest delayed processes and very bloody. Bipartisanship has been decreasing for over 20 years. The President has a mandate, but that does not compel under the Constitution, even given Hal’s views of the Founding Fathers, the legislative process to change its rules.

I am catching up on my reading this morning, and feel my patience slipping away. The uproar has barely subsided over the pork promised to pass the healthcare bill, and now I am reading more about Senator Shelby’s pet projects. There have been times in the history of our nation when we should be thankful for the cloture rule, but for too many years now we have been playing “take no prisoners” politics. The magnitude of the pork demanded in order to move the agenda of either side is nauseating. Neither side can afford a single member to deviate from the party line. So the people’s work is never accomplished.

Forcing a change in the rule would require a Constitutional amendment.

@billwald
Yes, bill, but we are playing what if, as in what if toilet paper sheets were dollar bills.

I was reading that leaders meeting in Davos are seriously concerned about America, going forward, as it appears that our government has become non-functional.

@Jaime I would think the bankers would be more concerned over the precedent government imposed salary caps, bonus restrictions, etc. Just a thought, not a statement of pro or con to the idea.