Should we require 3/5 of senators present v 3/5 duly elected senators to maintain the fillibuster? [View all]
If Manchin's position is "we didn't do it like this before, how would he feel about making it the way it was before?"
That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as "cloture." In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the 100-member Senate.
Changing the rules from 60 senators to 2/3rds present would allow the Democrats to wait out Republicans until they make up 2/3rds of the Senators present. Or simply change the rules to require 3/5ths present instead of duly elected. Could this work?
The difference between the old and the new is, of course, that the new rules do not require the opposition to be present, whereas the old rules would. The tweak to "senators present" vs duly elected might be minor enough to satisfy sinema and manchin. It also might be major enough for us to eventually pass voting rights.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm
| 4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes, we should require 3/5ths of senators present instead of all duly elected. Manchin will likely get behind this. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| No. We should keep the Senate rules as they are. Manchin and Sinema won't budge no matter what. | |
1 (25%) |
|
| End the fillibuster entirely and require only 51 votes to end and start debate for a bill. | |
3 (75%) |
|
| Other | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
