The Senate filibuster featured prominently in the recent government shutdown.
The filibuster, in its current form, requires the approval of 60 senators to end debate on most legislation so it can be voted on.
Value of the Filibuster
We found broad agreement among readers on the value of the filibuster. Eighty percent agreed that it helps curb rapid policy swings when control of Congress shifts from one party to another.Seventy-two percent of respondents agreed that it’s important to retain this supermajority requirement for major policy issues, and nearly two-thirds (64 percent) agreed that this rule protects the Senate’s deliberative role.
A similar number, 63 percent, agreed that passing fewer laws with bipartisan support is preferable to faster partisan lawmaking, though 24 percent were undecided.
However, respondents also voiced frustration with the filibuster. More than half (52 percent) said the filibuster makes it too difficult for any president or Congress to carry out the agenda voters elected them to pursue.
Changes and Exceptions
Rules for using the filibuster have changed several times over the years. The Senate began requiring a two-thirds majority, 66 votes, to end debate in 1917. That threshold was lowered to three-fifths, 60 votes, in 1975.
In those days, a filibuster halted not just one bill but all Senate business. That’s because senators had to actually debate the bill in the Senate chamber to keep the filibuster going. Filibuster speeches went on for hours, even days, effectively shutting down the Senate.
That changed in the 1970s when the Senate adopted a two-track system. This allows the Senate to set aside one bill and continue voting on other matters. With this “silent filibuster,” any senator can halt legislation simply by announcing the intention to filibuster.
Poll respondents favored further changes to make the filibuster less tempting for senators.
For example, 95 percent agreed that senators should not be paid when a filibuster causes a government shutdown. And 76 percent agreed that there should be a limit on how long a senator can block a bill.
One respondent wrote, “No senator should receive wages during a government shutdown, and no back wages after government resumes.”
Another wrote, “There should be a two-week limit on the amount of time a filibuster can delay a legislative action.”
Most respondents (56 percent) favored returning to a system where the filibuster halts all Senate business until the debate is resolved.
One reader wrote, “Filibusters should be done in the spoken word, pertain to the legislation, and be subject to time limits of up to one week.”
A filibuster-proof majority (64 percent) of respondents favored exempting annual funding bills from the filibuster to avoid government shutdowns.
“Anytime the Senate is filibustering a funding bill, the government should automatically be funded with a clean continuing resolution until it is resolved,” a reader wrote.
Sixty-two percent favored increasing the use of budget reconciliation bills, which are exempt from the filibuster, rather than changing the filibuster itself. However, 25 percent were undecided on this question.
Yea or Nay
Finally, we asked readers to take an up-or-down vote on the filibuster.Most respondents (53 percent) did not think the filibuster should be eliminated to allow all Senate business to pass with a simple majority vote.
If the filibuster were to be abolished, a clear majority (59 percent) of respondents favored adding safeguards against rapid policy changes, such as delayed effective dates for legislation or higher thresholds for repealing a law within two years.
When asked to rate their feelings about the filibuster on a scale, overall opinion favored keeping the filibuster. The largest cohort strongly favored keeping it. The next largest group landed near the middle.
Presented with a range of options for dealing with the filibuster, most respondents (64 percent) favored keeping it. However, the largest share of those favored making it harder to use.
Many readers suggested lowering the filibuster threshold.
“I would like to see more limitations on how a filibuster is conducted, and the vote limit lowered from 60, but perhaps higher than a simple majority,” a reader wrote.
The most commonly offered suggestion was 55 votes.
Some readers favored a constitutional amendment to resolve the filibuster question. The “filibuster should be enshrined as an amendment in the Constitution,” one respondent wrote.
