Question

How does the filibuster affect the workings of Congress, positively and negatively?

Answer 1

The filibuster is a Senate rule that allows unlimited debate on an issue before the Senate. This unlimited debate can only be ended by the votes of 60 Senators (called invoking “cloture”). From the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s the filibuster was primarily used by lone Senators or small groups of Senators to block or call attention to legislation they disapproved of. Since 2009, the filibuster has been used to block the Senate from voting on any bills or nominations unless they have 60 votes. Predictably, this has result in intense and debilitating gridlock in Congress.

The filibuster evolved accidentally. It's not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is it part of our system of checks and balances. No Senate rules specifically mention filibusters.

When the House of Representatives and the Senate were established in 1789, each had similar rules for cutting off debate on a bill or any other matter. Only a majority vote was needed to pass a "previous question motion". Once that motion passed, debate on the bill ended, and senators then voted whether to enact the bill into law.

In 1806, senators simplified their rules, eliminating the little-used "previous question motion" rule, which limited debate [source: Connolly]. They didn't realize that they had made it possible for one or more senators to carry on an endless debate that could keep bills the majority wanted to pass from coming to a vote. The House, on the other hand, retained the ability to cut off debate by a simple majority vote. Filibusters are not possible in that body.

During the 19th century, the filibuster was an uncommon tactic in the Senate. The first filibusters were not held until the 1830s [source: Connolly]. Fewer than two dozen filibusters took place before 1900. The reason was that the Senate had a tradition of reasoned debate and most senators frowned on any abuse of rules.

In 1917, a group of senators conducted a filibuster to block a bill that would arm U.S. merchant ships. Frustrated by the 23-day delay as the Great War raged in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson enlisted public opinion against "a little group of willful men" [source: Carlson]. He pushed the Senate to pass what was known as the cloture rule. That meant that two-thirds of senators could vote to cut off debate.

During the 20th century, Southern senators often used filibusters to block civil rights legislation. From 1922 to 1949, they were able to block five separate anti-lynching laws. In 1957, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond spoke in the Senate for 24 hours, 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a vote on a civil rights bill. His record for a one-man filibuster has never been surpassed [source: Carlson].

In 1975, senators changed the cloture rule to require only a three-fifths vote, 60 rather than 67 senators, to cut off debate. But new procedures also allowed Senators who could muster at least 41 colleagues to block a particular piece of legislation while the Senate proceeded with other business. They didn't need to conduct an actual filibuster, only threaten one. Intended to make the Senate more efficient, this change actually increased the frequency of filibusters [source: Schlesinger].

Why the filibuster is important?

Voters elect a party to power and expect them to govern. If they govern well, voters will reward them at the next election. If they govern poorly, voters will punish them. Republicans figured out in 2009 that if they simply block everything the majority party wants to do, then it starts to look like the majority party is doing a very bad job at governing. Few bills are passed, and the ones that are have to be loaded down with pork in order to scrounge up enough votes to get to 60. Americans’ problems start to go unaddressed and it starts to look like the majority party is doing a very bad job. So who do voters reward? The minority party.

In short, the filibuster allows the minority to sabotage the majority party, and by extension the will of the people and the good of the country, and then reap the rewards from voters’ dissatisfaction. Obviously, this is not how a democracy should work. Since it is nearly impossible to amass 60 votes in the Senate, this dynamic will be near-constant in the years ahead.The pros and cons are, it allows a group to halt legislation even without a majority. Some people think it is a good thing, because this means that the majority party can't necessarily just pass anything they like, they have to make sure that the minority doesn't hate it so much that they are willing to break out the dreaded filibuster. Others think it is a bad thing because it allows a minority more power than they presumably should have.