Amazon.com Widgets
  • I think filibusters should be allowed.

    I think filibusters should be allowed. The filibuster could be a useful tool for preventing a vote on a particular issue. A filibuster is a completely legitimate strategy when invoked and can be brought to a close if a majority of the Senate (more than half) votes to end the filibuster.

  • It is a tradition

    It is a Senate tradition to have filibusters, and the minority of the chamber does deserve to have certain powers they can wield when they really need to. The amount and powers of filibusters should probably be reduced, but the tactic itself should not be completely abolished altogether as it is.

  • Yes, but with restrictions

    The filibuster itself is necessary in keeping the majority party in the Senate from having to much power. However, a lot of people abuse this power. To make them less likely and able to abuse it, we should enact regulation on the filibuster, like requiring the people obstructing the vote to speak continuously, and perhaps not allow filibusters on bills that say, 80% of the Senate agree on. Also, they shouldn't be allowed to filibuster motions to proceed.

  • They completely undermine democracy

    People say the minority party should have power, And I understand that. However, Filibusters allow the minority party to prevent the majority from having ANY power. It's completely ridiculous that bills can no longer be passed without being filibustered due to them requiring a supermajority. If the majority of americans want something, They should be able to get it.

  • No, They should not.

    Filibustering is an inherently anti-democratic process that allows a party to kill a bill without actually voting on it. This essentially can allow a minority in the senate to essentially dictate what bills get passed as long as said minority is larger than 1/3rd (which it pretty much always is). While I will admit that it has occasionally been used for good, It's far more often been abused to protect a party agenda or to "dunk on" the other party.

  • It's intrinsically against democracy and has too much power due to unrealistic measures to prevent it

    Ignoring the fact it's impractical to stop an filibuster because the side doing it is going to side with their party. It stops legislation from being passed. The idea that 'bad issues can be stopped' by a party talking about nonsense all day is ridiculous given if a law is going to passed, It's being passed by elected officials who are put there by American's who most likely agree with what they're voting on. It would be the same thing as if a doctor was going to do a life saving procedure on you but another doctor who doesn't think you need it, Or just wants to you die, Can prevent your surgery by talking your doctors ear off until you die, With the only way to stop it is if 2/3rds of all doctors told him to stop talking, Since there's only two doctors (parties) they can never get 2/3rds of the vote. The surgery will always fail. Filibusters cause good and bad bills to die when voting should cause good or bad bills to die.

    I'm legitimately surprised every vote isn't filibustered until the deadline because my God it's too effective. It can and does kill every single bill the tactic is used on.

    It's a small part of a bigger issue as to why the two-party system is so corrupt.

  • Filibustering is anti-democratic.

    Filibustering is a terrible practice for a democratic country to allow; the recent example of the First Aid legislation in the U.K. is a case in point, where a necessary change could have been made but was blocked by one man. It makes a mockery of the democratic process. It just isn't necessary to allow this kind of nonsense in the Houses of Parliament when measures can be properly debated instead.

  • Phillip Davies MP (UK) filibustered out the education of first aid techniques for students.

    Phillip Davies MP (UK) filibustered out the education of first aid techniques for students. I am a first aid (EFR) instructor who understands the benefit of this training, not just for saving lives but as an attitude adjustment and team building exercise for the young, I am really lost for words in exactly the same way as Mr. Davies wasn't.

  • Nope, it allows selfish MP's (England case) to make a personal decision on laws

    Filibustering allows selfish MP's to block laws outright just by speaking for too long. How this is allowed to go on is crazy. They are able to block laws simply because they personally do not agree with (or have a personal vested interest against) it which is not democratic in any sense

  • No, they should not.

    The filibuster is an outdated practice on the floor of Congress, and it should be banned now. Some people at least spend the time themselves speaking without a break and that shows courage if not being very wise. But those who have other ways of calling a session a filibuster without actually doing one are just ludicrous.

  • No, filibusters shouldn't be allowed.

    I do not think that filibusters should be allowed. I think that they are not a good way to achieve a goal or an efficient way for two political groups to work together. I'm surprised they're even allowed. I think that they are just a childish tactic to sall the process.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.