Maybe the US should not be considered a democracy... Let's not even start on the effectively limited two party system....

I have to disagree:

Maddening as it is, the filibuster has been a democratic tactic in politics for centuries, it allows the minority voice to retain some power.

Do the elected representatives serve the public interest or serve their own self-interest?
If Obama achieves nothing else while in power he should reform the electoral system, real democracy delayed is democracy denied.
Also ban the lobbyists and the campaign sponsors, fund your politics via the state, firstly it would save billions of dollars, it would reduce the endless moronic tv propaganda commercials and it would prevent vested interests having an undue corrupting influence on your politicians.

The Senate is about an equal voice amongst the states and the house is about an equal voice for the people. I actually think this strikes a great balance and keeps the nut jobs in Lala Land from riding rough shod over the Midwest while the Religious Right fanatics in the south also can't force their views on the Militant Athiests in Lala Land.

Go Commiez

@Obi - I'm actually OK with the filibuster, but it is a block of closing debate to allow a vote which would pass by a simple majority which is all that is required. If we truly cared about the minority voice, we would have a true multiple party system. My point is if an anti-democratic tool is going to be used, it should be used sparingly and must be with real conviction. If debate will not be closed, than the majority should not allow recess to be called. They would need to stay in session until a new majority opinion is reached or the minority accepts majority rule. There would be fewer anti-democratic filibusters if senators needed to sit in to champion their cause...

@Obi - the filibuster is a part of American government, but is not supposed to be a GIVEN part of government. General laws require a majority vote, not 60%. We should not accept a 60% requirement to pass ANYTHING. It is a vote not to close debate, not a vote to kill legislation.

@Draug - that "balance" for equal states is highly antiquated and based on a time when there was vastly more parity between states. The government should treat each citizen as having equal voting power, and that is just not the case with the Senate. That body should then be a deliberation body to advise the house and not vote. Let that be the oversight body, and not a redundant legislative body. The executive and judicial branches are the checks on the legislative branch.

Will someone share the British system here? My understanding is the house of lords serves more of an expert advisory and oversight function, but does not pass legislation -- comparative government classes were a long time ago...

What is the problem with expecting 3 out of 5 people to agree? You think the Senate is misrepresentative now? Imagine the 25 smallest states getting together and propossing something only in the interest of small states. They plus DC coupd get it through with a simple majority even though they represent less than half the people.

@ josunice

America is a constitutional republic. Our elections are democratic, but we are a republic of 50 semi-sovereign states. As someone else pointed out, the Senate is not the peoples' house but the states' house. The Senate is not designed to represent every person equally. It is designed to represent each state equally.

Furthermore, the filibuster is an important check on the majority. I agree that a filibuster shouldn't require simply 40 votes. To filibuster, I think you need to do it old-school and get up there and stand there and talk your head off for as long as possible. None of this "oh we say we're going to filibuster and we have 40 guys"

Third, they *did* use it with conviction. They believed the gun law was unconstitutional and stopped it by any means at their disposal.

And the simple fact is it would not have passed the house anyhow.

Josunice - the Senate is and always has been about checks and balances, and as a resident of a small state I can assure you that it is a very fresh and important concept, not "archaic" at all.

You're talking about a gun bill. Fine, you want gun restrictions - go ahead a pass a law in your state. Oh, you're from New York, you did pass a law already. Fine! But I'm from Iowa, where we enjoy having lots of guns but apparently don't feel a big need to massacre each other - we have a one of the lowest murder rates in the country. Why should you have the right to take away *our* rights just because your state is violent and messed up? You passed new laws in your states, why don't you wait and see if that helps things before you start cramming your way of life down other people's throats? Thankfully the Senate is there to protect the small states from busy-bodies like you.

So, you can complain about the Senate all you want, but it's not going away any time soon.

@Draug -- " Imagine the 25 smallest states getting together and propossing something only in the interest of small states." We see that now. Makes my point the Senate as a legislative voting body needs to go....

@Gunfighter - "The Senate is not designed to represent every person equally. It is designed to represent each state equally." EXACTLY - why do states need equal representation? Makes sense (MAYBE) when there was more parity in states, but not today. New York should split into 12 new states to get more equal representation, then. Having a Senate to equally "represent" states is alright, but it should not be voting on legislation -- ultimately small states have a disproportionate say in our government.

@josunice,

you obviously have no understanding of what the functioning and purpose of a Republic. As Gunfighter said, the US is NOT a Democracy (note the capital "D") although it employs democratic actions (not the lower case "d").

Well, the USA is a democratic federation of states so in a sense, you need a political channel through which the states can express their political opinions on equal footing, just like every voter's vote has the same weight in the general election because equality is one of the tenets of workign democracy. This equality would be gone if the states' voting power depended on population/GDP/whatever, bigger states would steamroll the smaller ones everytime.

You asked about the UK - in the EU, the parliament is skewed towards smaller states, the number of votes needed for a MP is smaller in smaller states and parliament passes the legislation. The Commission is composed from one commissioner from each country so that's pretty much the US Senate right there, although EC is an executive body and the commissioners are supposed to represent the EU as a whole, not the interests of their home country. Fat chance though ;)

instant run off voting or proportional representation would do a hell of a lot more than a broken filibuster to secure that minority voices have representation

I find it hard to believe that US Citizens do not want more democratic accountability from their elected representatives, surely the very essence of real democracy is that the elected effectively represent the views of their constituents, the current system negates democracy.

@jos - That is exactly why filibuster is so important. 26 state can't be allowed to tell the other 24 and DC (or some almost break even combo there of) what they should do. The fillibuster says "unless 3 out of 5 agree..."

@MichiganMan - OK, we live in a democratic Republic, not a Democracy -- does that mean that the Senate and the filibuster are what they should be given our democratic principles in today's realities rather than 200 years ago? This is not about gun regs as it would not pass the democratic vote of the house -- and on that score I agree with FlemGem that much of that is for the States, at least until enough states can get together on the issue. However, I take exception to the presentation today that laws require 60% to pass the senate on EVERYTHING, which is not the purpose of the filibuster. As Gunfighter concurred, if you are going to use the filibuster you should have to do more than raise your hand (i.e. stay on the floor in principle, hollywood style).

The essence of a Republic, as opposed to a Democracy -- as Draugnar aptly points out above -- is that the majority CANNOT vote away the rights of the minority. This plays out on the state level, as well as the individual level. That is what is so troubling to me about Obama's presser the other day when he kept saying, "the majority of Americans agree..." He's supposedly a Constitutional scholar, and yet he continually invokes terms that are antithetical to true Republican governance.

The Senate should not be a voting legislative body. The house votes on legislation which the executive and judicial branches serve as checks and balances against. The senate should form committees and assist in the oversight of government (as they do now) and be a deliberation body to add to the discourse around legislation, but not be a redundant voting body.

There is accountability. It's called "not getting re-elected". We have accountability when we go to the polls on election day and say "Guess what, you fucked us so you are *out*!" It's also why all of the House is relelcted every two years. I personally wish we relelcted half the Senate every two years instead of just 1/3rd. Each state would elect one new Senator every two years. If we are going to keep the one third rule, then each state should have 3 Senators (153 total as DC should have Senators too, not just the VP as the deciding vote in a tie "representing" them).

@Jos - even when the states and commonwealths were formed, there was disproportionate populations. Here is the 1790 census. Note that Virginia has more than 10 times the populace of Delaware. It is how the founding fathers intended it.

Massachusetts 378,787
New Hampshire 141,885
Rhode Island 68,825
Connecticut 237,946
New York 340,120
New Jersey 184,139
Pennsylvania 434,373
Delaware 59,096
Maryland 319,728
Virginia 691,737
North Carolina 393,751
South Carolina 249,073
Georgia 82,548

the problem is the 17th Amendment. It needs to be repealed and the power to elect, and recall, Senators be given back to the State Legislatures.

The very fact that they are all 'Amendments' might give some kind of hint that from time-to-time they need changing, if they haven't changed for a hundred you get the feeling somebody needs to do a review and like PDQ

The 17th came in around the same time as the Federal Reserve and the subsequent income tax. It's a scam that eventually allowed the Senate to become nothing more than a crony capitalism shill. In the past, when a Senator wasn't voting in line with the will of his home state, the legislature that sent him to DC yanked him back home and replaced him with someone that would do the bidding of his home State.

What I don't like about current practice is that the threat of a filibuster is equivalent to a filibuster. If the minority party threatens to filibuster, I think the majority party should make them actually do it. They should have to man up (or woman up) and stand for their beliefs.

But no, they won't do that, because if they have to sit in chambers for the duration of the filibuster, who's going to make their fundraising calls that day?

@hecks - Exactly. If you filibusterer, you should have to filibuster. Stand up, own the floor, and refuse to give it up. Lets see how long that lasts. (Longest fillibuster - 24 hours, 18 minutes) Some persistent soul may make it a day or two, but making it permanent, like it is now? Impossible.