« False theories of bargaining power | Main | What I've been reading »
A public choice theory of the filibuster
Senators like the filibuster. It keeps them relevant when they're in the minority. It makes their chamber a lot more powerful than in the House, and ensures that the leadership has to listen to their concerns more closely.
That's Ezra Klein, here is more.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 11, 2009 at 04:31 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
What a silly theory. The 60th senator likes the filibuster. The 50th senator would much prefer majority rule.
Posted by: Romain Wacziarg at Nov 11, 2009 5:01:02 PM
That article has the assumption that the legislature's job is to pass bills; however, I think it's at least as important to defeat bills.
If you can't sell 6 out of 10 on your good idea, it may be because the idea you have isn't actually all that good.
Posted by: Laserlight at Nov 11, 2009 5:25:23 PM
"Or they may tire of seeing the Federal Reserve take the lead on bailouts and the Supreme Court take the lead on choice and the EPA take the lead on climate change and Congress become progressively less relevant."
Or they could like, ya know, take the lead on those things within their constitutional authority. They could start by wishing those other folks luck raising their own money.
The SupCo "taking the lead on choice." OMG.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 11, 2009 5:28:39 PM
Do you think there won't be a backlash with a filibuster? The first through 39th person is also under pressure depending on your point of view. Take this cup from my lips.
Posted by: Bill at Nov 11, 2009 5:57:33 PM
The filibuster also gives minority-party Senators more claim on "campaign contributions" than they would otherwise have.
Posted by: Veracitor at Nov 11, 2009 6:01:13 PM
"Among other things, the minority has no incentive to agree, and the majority can't let debate go on forever, because they have to pass bills to keep the country going."
So give them an incentive; get people to the table and come up with a compromise that has the support of enough people to vote cloture on any filibuster attempt. The filibuster, cloture and other rules should force compromise and create policies in the best interest of the people. (As Kennedy wrote, "Going along means more than just good fellowship - it includes the use of compromise, the sense of all things possible... For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals.") Getting rid of the filibuster would more than likely have a negative effect as the rights of the minority would be consecutively overruled. I don't think that's a path either party wants to go down.
Posted by: Zeke at Nov 11, 2009 6:03:17 PM
Zeke,
And if there is no possible compromise? Look, the Republicans do not want a health care reform bill to pass. So how do the Democrats compromise with them? Compromises are only possible when the ranges of what each side finds acceptable overlap.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Nov 11, 2009 7:30:28 PM
Bernard,
Republicans don't want the Democrats' bills to pass. Maybe there isn't a compromise to be had right now, but I don't think either side has actually tried. Democrats thought they could ram it through and found out they couldn't.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Nov 11, 2009 7:48:40 PM
The filibuster is going to be there for the forseeable future for much the reasons Klein outlines. Neither party is sure of its long term control. If it ever becomes clear that one party has a permanent lock on, let us say, 54-60 seats, you may see the filibuster done away with. I can't imagine that happening any time soon.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Nov 11, 2009 7:53:04 PM
If it ever becomes clear that one party has a permanent lock on, let us say, 54-60 seats, you may see the filibuster done away with.
What prevents either party from eliminating the filibuster is the idea that they would be in a position to be unable to stop bills pass. But it could be eliminated by 51 Senators when the rules are adopted.
The filibuster was reduced from two-thirds to three-fifths of the membership when
a) It had long been clear to the Democrats that they'd always have at least 40 members (but that Republicans might not), but they had recently fallen from controlling 65+ for years to only a small majority, and then
b) The Democrats went back up to 60 members after the Watergate election.
Some other factories of increasing partisanship played a role too.
Posted by: John Thacker at Nov 12, 2009 12:32:26 AM
Excuse me, public choice? This is pretty much what I was taught in the 50s.
Posted by: Buce at Nov 12, 2009 1:30:09 AM
What if we called it a weak supermajority. Would it sound less like obstructionism when the Dems are in charge?
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 12, 2009 3:24:33 AM
(a)One might make a public choice case for the filibuster in the House, but not for the non-democratic Senate. Also, note w.r.t. any potential justifications that (b) current Senate rules do not require the threat of a filibuster to be followed-up with an actual talk-a-thon; that (c) they put the showing-up burden of maintaining/breaking a filibuster on the majority; that (d) those potential justifications must be for not allowing a vote to proceed at all rather than for a on-the-record vote up or down on the proposed measure itself; that (e) Constitutional checks-and-balances via bicameral passage requirements, vetoes, and over-representation of presumed regional minority interests by construction of the Senate; that (f) the constitutional requirements for and the minority protection arguments concerning passage or defeat of legislation are by design/necessity different from those for, say, approval of presidential nominees; and that (g) allowing the current flagrant, exponentially increasing (since 2006), and completely unprecedented abuse of this rule has de facto ceded to a small region of the country more disproportionate power over the national political agenda than it--or any other region--has ever had, including over a single antebellum issue it deemed so important as to go to war over.
Posted by: dwinds at Nov 12, 2009 6:49:45 AM
"Agree to end [filibuster]: The filibuster prevents reform of Social Security as surely as expansion of health-care reform. It's as bad for deficit hawks as it is for free-spenders."
Wrong. Government spending is subject to a ratchet mechanism. It only goes up. "Gridlock," far from being fearsome, is, sadly, the best we have been able to hope for.
(Never mind that since "deficit hawks" and "free-spenders" sit opposite each other on a single preference axis, nothing could possibly send us simultaneously toward them both. Logic, Ezra, logic.)
Posted by: jim at Nov 12, 2009 8:57:18 AM
And if there is no possible compromise? Look, the Republicans do not want a health care reform bill to pass. So how do the Democrats compromise with them? Compromises are only possible when the ranges of what each side finds acceptable overlap.
The Republicans want the health care bill to pass, but they have to convince their constituents that they are fighting against it. The Democrats want the health care bill to fail, but they have to convince their constituents that they are fighting for it.
I don't see a compromise, but I see a situation where the vast majority of democrats vote for the health care bill in order to say "Democrats support healthcare reform", while allowing just enough democrats to vote against to ensure it fails... and then a small handful of Republicans in a surprise move vote for the bill, while the vast majority vote against to allow Republicans to say "we tried to fight the bill"... and the bill gets passed (and the Democrats start panicking).
Posted by: Vehical Driver at Nov 12, 2009 10:56:47 AM
good bifocals on line
a pair of glasses every year
Posted by: glasses at Nov 12, 2009 10:35:19 PM
a pair of glasses every year
good bifocals on line
Posted by: glasses at Nov 12, 2009 10:35:46 PM
The filibuster, cloture and other rules should force compromise and create policies in the best interest of the people.
Posted by: Angelie at Nov 13, 2009 4:25:43 AM
There oughta be a law!
they have to pass bills to keep the country going.
Huh?
Posted by: anon at Nov 14, 2009 7:24:46 PM
