Filibuster is destroying our Democracy - Is the Senate over using the filibuster?

republic: "a form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

If we actually lived in a true Republic, as our forefathers had envisioned it, then we would not have these problems. Our original Republic has been distorted and misshapen over time. The Constitution accounted for this unfortunate possibility and recognized that should our government get out of the peoples control, we have the power to overthrow it and establish a new governing body, hopefully one like our forefathers had truly imagined. One of the people, by the people, and for the People.
Even in a Democracy, it is controlled by a small ruling minority, just as many on here have accused our Republic of being controlled by small states, peoples, or minorities.
So... If Democracies are in truth oligarchies, where the minority rules by calculated influence, is there a form of government that protects both minority and majority rights?

Yup, we refer to it as a REPUBLIC!

In the Republican form of government, the power rests in a written Constitution, wherein the powers of our government is limited so that the people retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In addition to limiting the power of government, care is also taken to limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the majority and the minority.

Alexander Hamilton was aware of the tendency for a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been quoted as writing:

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

The system is locked in stalemate in which no one is able to really change anything. The country needs to evolve quickly before it becomes eternally irreparable. It will come to a point where change will no longer be possible. Like in biology, those who cannot adapt quickly enough become extinct.

There are some people willing to fight, but in the end their fight is pointless and the obstacles too great to overcome.

The number of people leaving this country has been rising. I already left one country... I can do it again. I'm not going to waste my life away fighting for a lost cause, leaving sounds really good if all I have to look forward to is unemployment, debt, corrupt politicians, high insurance costs with no hope of change.

I beleive in unlimited debate filibuster as its called ... but be required to actually be three and debate rather than just vote a Filibuster. Actually holding the floor by reading the a book or other tactics (see mr smith goes to Washington) has its own limitations, either someone will join in or the person runs out of steam. The procedure that allows voting a filibuster is the broken part.

this '60 votes' policy is what originally gave lieberman his ability to prostitute himself when he switched from the Democrats to Independent--both parties were kissing his ass when they wanted to push a bill.

y'know it occurs to me that we certainly could outlaw billionaires who can afford several of their own lifetimes to give a little back from the future what they've stolen from us in the very present and recent past... Yes that's a solution. and I would love to see some fat ass big wigs sweating it on just a few thousand million instead of millions of millions.

[and, now editing...and I do apologize for my originally colorful, if apt, language ;) take heart you "billionaires," in that an undeserved curse does not rest, if you could be, ahem, that is...so undeserved for underserving.]

Sadly, too many American's seem to make their decisions based on an irrational who's in power now approach. Those who are crazy right or left-wingers, a large block of who votes in non-presidential elections, simply don't like it when the other party is in power. Therefore they feel that it's okay for this country to get nothing accomplished while they bitch and moan.

I am so thankful that we have the filibuster to protect us from unwanted and disastrous legislation. We have an out of control COngress and Senate that is completely ignoring the will of the American People. Right now the only chance we have to stop the Government from taking control of our lives is the filibuster. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have to be stopped.

and for all the apparent efficacy of largely sexular government, it's a modern marvel more of us aren't calling for a 'separation' doctrine of 'church and state'...oops! please, forgive my antiquated nomenclature. I meant "government and people" or just more commonly "them (patting you on the back) and us (getting it in the ass)" but *sigh* I guess religion could have its uses after all, huh? ...yeah...

Get rid of the filibuster? No way, maybe lessen the vote needed to overcome it to 58 or 55, but the filibuster is important.

We should get rid of the SENATE, it's the U.S. house of lords. Nearly all of them are multi-millionaires and it gives small states essentially dozens of votes, which is stupid.

Ditch the senate, we should only have the house. That'll fix the problems in this country real quick. The Senate has been a corrupt office as long as it's been in existence and direct election hasn't fixed it.

Yes, we are not a democracy, we are a Republic. That said, the minority should not govern the majority. When the nation was established the founding fathers accepted this compromise but they did not in large part ever conceive of a federal government with such mismatched representation making so many decisions. We either need to radically devolve federal government or adjust the representation of congress. Otherwise the country will continue to be held captive by sparsely populated states that are out of touch with most Americans.

The Senate can perfectly well operate without being jammed by Filibusters on a daily basis. Harry Reid and the Democrats for whatever reason are still operating as if it were a 50-50 Senate. Yes rules were changed then because neither party would tolerate being side-lined when the body was so evenly divided. That hasn't always been the case and does not need to be so.

That said, this is just part of a much bigger problem. The Senate as a whole is an embarrassment to democracy. While our found fathers structured it to help protect the minority it was never meant to hold the majority hostage to the will of a slim minority. Yet, that is the case.

Presently the top 10 most populous states account for nearly 55% of the overall US population. The 25 least populous states account for little more than 16% of the overall US Population. In the Senate however, 55% of Americans have 20% of the representation and 16% of Americans have 50% of the representation.

The result is that the most powerful body of Congress, the Senate, overwhelmingly represents a slim minority of the population. No wonder Congress can never get anything right. They are literally out of touch with most Americans. Historical analysis shows that while this distortion has existed since the founding of the country. Yet, even then the disparity wasn't so vast. In 1790 six states (out of 13) had about 70% of the population, but also nearly half of the representation in the Senate.

This peculiar composition for the Senate, like the electoral college, has lived well-beyond its usefulness. It is one thing to protect the rights of majority and minority. It is another thing altogether for a slim minority to govern the majority.

The problem lies in the entire system itself.

I think our senate and house representatives should be law makers elected ONLY to draft and come up with multiple pieces of legislation for each issue that needs to be addressed. They should hold no privilege or voting power. They would be more of a think-tank and representatives of their constituents' philosophy.

Then we the people should vote for which piece of legislation we like as long as it adheres to the constitution. It would work like a series of primaries for legislation. And eventually there would be a final vote.

Also the citizens of individual states and individual districts would be allowed to vote for their states ability to opt out of any law they oppose. (Think prohibition.) Just as long as their doing so isn't at odds with the constitution. (Think slavery.) This would be more of a direct democracy and therefore we the people would be responsible for its outcome.

There are an infinite number of kinks that need to be ironed out of this idea, but i think its at least a start to a more direct democracy and eventually total liberty.

I truly think the best way is to somehow combine libertarian, socialist, and democratic ideas. Where everybody gets a voice, everybody enjoys their infinite rights, and everyone has an opportunity to provide for the community. But hell what do i know.

Two party corporatism is killing our system, not the filibuster. Filibusters get broken, just ask Al Gore Sr who filibustered against the Civil Rights Bill.

Reason for the Filibuster rule and why it is needed. We are a Republic and not a Democracy.

"A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]"

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

It's not just the GOP if you will remember Bill Frist and his threats of a "nuclear option" when the Republicans were in the majority. But I agree it should be changed.

It's a Republic, not a Democracy...

It only takes one senator to invoke a filibuster, but 3/5 (60) of the senate to end it with a cloture vote. This rule badly needs to be changed, with at least 20% of the senate to invoke and no more than a simple majority, or even 40% to end it with cloture. Unfortunately rule changes require 67 votes. LMAO. Learn to love the filibuster, it's not going anywhere.

Well there needs to be clarification to discuss this issue. First of all, we do not have straight democracy nor have we ever had one. The filibuster is there to prevent a tiny majority to force through legislation against the will of the minority. Now whether or not the republicans are abusing this power is debatable, but to simply throw out a procedure that has had a very important role in our government speaks to me as a very bad idea.

Lets imagine, assuming that those that are for removing this power are aligned right now with the current majority, that the make up for the congress was opposite. Would you be making this same argument?

Now I realize that there are a lot of problems with our governmental system, but to remove the filibuster would create a lot of unintended consequences down the road.

I've never understood why the filibuster was allowed in the first place. It's about the most UN-democratic political tactic out there.

And yes, campaign finance should be at the forefront if anything is to get done. But good luck getting any laws passed regarding that.

Agreed! I'm afraid that unless we start with campaign finance, we can't look to our government with any kind of credible answers.

I think that rule changes are in order. This is getting ridiculous.