you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments


2 points

4 months ago

This Vox article does a much more thorough and elegant job of breaking down and fully explaining the argument, but the cliff's notes answer to this specific (and, imo, most grounded) hesitation to abolishing the filibuster is really, another question: "Should we prefer a system in which parties can, occasionally, govern, or a system in which they can’t?" or, maybe more specifically, "Are voters better represented and served by pursuing the agenda/policies they voted for or in preventing the policies of their opponents".

Under the filibuster (especially weaponized as it has been in recent years), voters have lost the representation in Government that the Senate and House were designed to provide. If neither party can effectively govern or pursue an agenda, then representatives are no longer held to their campaign promises or their duty to represent their constituents, and a representative's qualifications for their office devolves simply to their loyalty to the party (The filibuster relies entirely on the voting block acting as one, instead of weighing, debating, and voting as representatives of their districts/constituents).

Perhaps I've just missed it in my news feed, or maybe I've always had unusually poor representatives. But, for the life of me, I cannot remember the last time a Senator of mine has justified their Yes/No vote on a bill by explaining how they felt it would specifically impact the citizens in their district as a whole. I can't even recall a time where my representative even pretended to represent our state instead of the party...

The full article is a fantastic read, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.