Pros And Cons Of Keeping The Filibuster

The US Senate Should Not Keep The Filibuster

The filibuster reform has been a widely debated topic for years. Source sentence. Although some people are in favor of the filibuster, the US Senate should not keep the filibuster because it slows meaningful debate and work, favors the minority vote over the majority, and has racist backgrounds connected to Jim Crow laws.

Those who support the filibuster do so for a variety of reasons. They argue first that the filibuster forces compromise and debate. The supporters of the filibuster also say that the slow movement of legislation increases space for deliberation, allowing senators to pass legislation best representing the will of their constituents. The supporters of the filibuster argue that these

During a filibuster, Senate rules allow senators to talk about any subject they choose, which means people can actually just waste as much time as they want, slowing or even worse, halting actual debate. "...in 1935, Senator Huey Long (D, Louisiana) had recited a salad dressing recipe and explained how to fry oysters during a 15-hour-long filibuster attempt to require Senate confirmation for a new federal agency established amid the Great Depression" ("The Filibuster"). This shows the filibuster's ridiculous mockery of the US Senate and eliminating debate over actual issues. The Senate, representing the people of the United States, is supposed to be having purposeful debate discussing the topic at hand, not going off-topic and derailing law-passing when days and weeks really do matter. Today's filibuster halts any debate, causing laws to be stuck for weeks without discussion. The Filibuster is not used to increase thinking time and thought about the issue of the bill at hand but to severely decrease discussion time. "Moreover, a Jan. 2022 study found that not only do filibusters not increase the meaningful debate as defenders claim, but they serve to dampen debate. The study showed that in 2007 when Senate Republicans increased the use of the filibuster, there was a fairly immediate 14% decline in debate. Three legislative sessions later, the debate had declined 28%"

The Senators who represent 20% of all Americans can override any legislation brought to the senate, which means they are canceling something that affects 80% of all other Americans. "Because ending a filibuster requires a 60-senator majority vote, just 41 conservative senators (the number of senators needed to protect a filibuster) in the 117th Senate who represent just over 20% of the American population can kill any and all legislation brought by the party voted in to control the Senate, House, and White House" (ProCon.org). If the majority of American people agree on an issue, the U.S system of democracy says the majority vote wins. This is different when a filibuster is because the senators representing only 20% can stop a bill or law from being passed. "By allowing members of a minority party to sidetrack or stop bills that have the support of a majority of senators, critics of the filibuster contend, the tactic gives the minority in the Senate a more powerful role than the authors of the Constitution intended. 'By imposing their will on the Senate, the nerve center of American government, a minority of senators found they could impose their will on the entire nation'" (CITATION). The original founders of our country did not intend for the minority ideas and beliefs of the senate to influence the entire United States. If a majority says that a bill or law