I see it as a step toward rule by a tyranny of the majority. In effect, we could become a one party state, like California or New York. I suppose if you favor the direction those states are headed you would see it as desirable.
(no message)
(no message)
Or are you counting on the Federalization of elections to lock in a one party Dem government?
Here's why that won't happen: Too many people make too much money on campaigns. A one party government eliminates a whole lot of income and employment for the political class.
(no message)
(no message)
Force the minority to go on the record and explain why the issue ought not go to the floor for a vote or full on debate. Talking filibusters.
That way, there is a transcript of their rationale to end debate.
But the idea that 41 Senators (often reflecting a significant minority of the nation's voters) can kill legislation, is too easy.
And don't forget the GOP seated 3 ... I say again 3 .. US Supreme Court Justices, without honoring the filibuster rule, which diminishes your and jakers' positions.
You are ruining this board.
Democrats, led by Manchin, have done their best to modify voting rights act to garner 60 votes, providing a number of concessions that the GOP required.
But, it won’t survive the filibuster.
(no message)
(no message)
We need real diversity and not dominance by coastal state masses who have zero appreciation for anything in the rest of the country.
…….this move would give the Left permanent control. Of course they want to change the rules to this.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Eliminate the filibuster, but require Senators to be selected by state legislatures (or appointed by governor and confirmed by the legislature's).
Democracy tempered by federalism.
The filibuster is useful to temper the worst aspects of democracy (tyranny of the majority, change without due consideration of side effects or of the true nature of the problem), but restoring the Senate to its original purpose would be better.