Trashing the Filibuster
Segment #661
The elimination of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate would indeed represent a profound and likely irreversible shift in the American political system, though "forever" is a strong word in politics—nothing is truly permanent, but the practical barriers to reinstating it would be immense. Here's a breakdown of why it would be transformative, how it could play out, and the arguments on both sides.What the Filibuster Does Today
The filibuster (specifically, the Senate's Rule XXII) allows a minority of 41 senators to block most legislation unless 60 votes are secured to invoke cloture (end debate).
It applies to most bills but not to:
Budget reconciliation (used for tax/spending bills, e.g., Trump tax cuts, Obamacare repeal attempts).
Nominations (eliminated for Supreme Court in 2017 by Republicans; for lower courts and executive appointees in 2013 by Democrats).
This forces supermajority compromise on major legislation, making the Senate a deliberate, consensus-driven body compared to the House's simple majority rule.
Immediate Effects of Elimination
Majority Rule Becomes Absolute:
A bare majority (50 + VP) could pass any bill, no matter how partisan or sweeping.
This would accelerate policy swings with each election cycle—think Medicare for All, national abortion bans, gun confiscation, or mass deportation laws passing with razor-thin margins.
Partisan Whiplash Intensifies:
Every two years (House + 1/3 Senate) or four years (presidency), the party in power could undo the prior majority’s entire agenda.
Example: Democrats could pass voting rights, climate, and labor laws in 2021–2022; Republicans could repeal them in 2025–2026 if they win trifecta control.
The Senate Becomes the House (But Worse):
The House already operates on majority rule, but the Senate’s 6-year terms and state-based representation were designed to slow things down.
Without the filibuster, the Senate loses its "cooling saucer" role (George Washington’s metaphor), becoming a supercharged House with fewer seats and longer terms—amplifying minority rule within the majority party.
Long-Term Systemic Changes
Aspect - With Filibuster - Without Filibuster
Legislative Stability - High—laws require broad buy-in - Low—laws flip with each majority
Minority Party Power - Strong (can block) - Near-zero (except in committee) -
Public Trust Mixed—seen as gridlock but also protection - Likely drops—laws seen as "rammed through"
State Influence - Small states (WY, VT) have veto power - Large states (CA, TX) dominate via coalition
Why It’s Likely Permanent
Precedent: Once eliminated for legislation, restoring it requires 60 votes—the very threshold it removes. The minority party would have to agree to give itself power back, which is politically suicidal.
Norm Erosion: The filibuster has been chipped away for decades (1975: 60 votes instead of 67; 2013/2017: nominations). Full elimination would normalize majority tyranny, making future Senates reluctant to restore a "gridlock" rule.
Partisan Incentive: Whichever party kills it first will use it to pass their agenda, then face the consequences when they lose power. But by then, the new normal is set.
Counterarguments (Why It Might Not "Forever" Change Things)
Reformation: Future Senates could adopt new rules (e.g., a 55-vote threshold, time-limited filibusters) via simple majority at the start of a Congress.
Public Backlash: If one party uses a filibuster-free Senate to pass extreme laws (e.g., court-packing, statehood for D.C./Puerto Rico), voters could punish them, forcing a course correction.
Constitutional Workarounds: States or courts could challenge laws, or Congress could self-impose supermajority rules via statute (though easily repealed).
Historical Parallels
House of Representatives (1890): The "Reed Rules" ended the "disappearing quorum" (a minority stalling tactic), cementing majority rule. It’s never been reversed.
UK House of Lords: Lost veto power in 1911 (Parliament Act). Still exists but can only delay, not block.
Bottom Line
Yes, it would fundamentally and likely irreversibly transform the system—turning the Senate from a deliberative, compromise-forcing body into a majoritarian steamroller. The U.S. would shift toward a parliamentary-style system in practice, with wild policy swings, weaker minority rights, and less stability. The only question is which party fires the first shot—and whether the public tolerates the chaos that follows.