We just need to undo two of the changes during the 60s and 70s that created the filibuster in its current form: (i) undo tracking, to ramp up the cost of filibustering, and (ii) go back to 66% of members present, rather than 3/5 of the full Senate, so that the burden is on the minority to remain physically present with at least 2/3 of the quorum, rather than on the majority to bring 61 votes every time (this would make possible those attrition fights everyone seems to remember so fondly).
And in addition: There are also intermediate approaches that might work well for our federal system. For example, we could move to a Senate based roughly on the Bundesrat, in which the Senate (a) is only entitled to vote on federal laws that must be administered by the States, and (b) even then only have a suspensive veto. That would preserve some role for the States, while limiting that role to areas of greatest legitimate concern for them and permitting override by the House.
This is a theoretical analysis, of course, centering around what may be beneficial without regard to the mechanics of implementation, and certainly without regard to the intentions of the authors of the document that sets up the current structure.
In practical terms such a change would require an amendment, which the states presumably would never approve. Ergo, we will need to live with the distortions of representation created by the Senate in its present form (which by the way are unconstitutional for the states to implement in local legislatures, since they violate one-person-one-vote rather egregiously), and must settle for fixing the filibuster (maybe).
No comments:
Post a Comment