The Senate not being population-based is part of the problem too. As are gerrymandering and not having universal adult suffrage or federal holidays for voting days. But a Constitutional Convention would be state-based, too, so we’d end up with something even worse than we have now.
You can wait out a filibuster. You just don’t allow new business until they’re done. That means they have to keep talking and eventually they’ll run out of speaking ability.
A filibuster raises the vote threshold, so it’s not something you can just wait out. And thank to how the filibusterer works nowadays, congressmen don’t actually need to get up there and talk, they can merely threaten to filibuster to raise the vote threshold.
What do you think a filibuster is? It’s an active debate. So yes, you can wait one out. If they can’t continue, then their time is over and you vote. It’s why they’ll get up and read books.
To break it, you don’t move on to new topics until they give up.
Still work that way. You have three options. You cloture the person, you move to new business or you wait them out. You still have the option to wait. Nothing has changed.
Waiting means nothing happens. You just wait. If it’s important enough that’s what you do.
And that essentially isn’t an option at times due to how difficult it is to reach the 60 vote threshold, which means nothing gets done, which means congress is basically useless.
Or you just wait them out. You do nothing until they relent.
Politics sometimes has to be ugly. What you don’t do is make sad excuses as to why things don’t get done. You just shut things down till they go for a vote.
Congress can’t do anything because of the fillabuster, two party system, and republicans though. The whole thing honestly needs an overhaul.
The Senate not being population-based is part of the problem too. As are gerrymandering and not having universal adult suffrage or federal holidays for voting days. But a Constitutional Convention would be state-based, too, so we’d end up with something even worse than we have now.
Agreed. It’s just a disaster all around honestly. It can change, but it’s not easy.
Don’t forget to include gerrymandering
You can wait out a filibuster. You just don’t allow new business until they’re done. That means they have to keep talking and eventually they’ll run out of speaking ability.
A filibuster raises the vote threshold, so it’s not something you can just wait out. And thank to how the filibusterer works nowadays, congressmen don’t actually need to get up there and talk, they can merely threaten to filibuster to raise the vote threshold.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1072714887/filibuster-explained
What do you think a filibuster is? It’s an active debate. So yes, you can wait one out. If they can’t continue, then their time is over and you vote. It’s why they’ll get up and read books.
To break it, you don’t move on to new topics until they give up.
That’s how it used to work, not anymore:
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1072714887/filibuster-explained
Still work that way. You have three options. You cloture the person, you move to new business or you wait them out. You still have the option to wait. Nothing has changed.
Waiting means nothing happens. You just wait. If it’s important enough that’s what you do.
And that essentially isn’t an option at times due to how difficult it is to reach the 60 vote threshold, which means nothing gets done, which means congress is basically useless.
Or you just wait them out. You do nothing until they relent.
Politics sometimes has to be ugly. What you don’t do is make sad excuses as to why things don’t get done. You just shut things down till they go for a vote.
You can’t wait out an indefinite filibuster. And it gets to become indefinite because they don’t actually need to talk at all.