Essay: Should the Filibuster be abolished?

The filibuster is a way to delay or block legislative action. Filibuster has a long history. The term filibuster comes from a Dutch word meaning “pirate.” This became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill. Filibuster delays action from being taken on a bill by running down the clock and avoiding a vote. According to the Huffington post, “Winston Churchill famously remarked that democracy is the worst form of government… except for all the other forms.” This makes a lot of sense because democracy is messy, confusing, and often frustrating. The idea of democracy is government by the people, of the people, and for the people. This is why the votes of the people should be what is allowed to decide political measures. Yet that is exactly what the filibuster prevents, the ability to vote on measures. Unlike a simple no vote on a measure that a Senator disagrees with, it is a mechanism to prevent a vote on the measure in the first place, with the goal of killing it by running out the clock. The filibuster  prevents a vote on a measure, this would be just like a lawyer not letting the jury reach a verdict by spending so much time on a closing argument to confuse and prevent the jury from deciding. What is really bad is that the filibuster does not need to involve actual debate on the measure. They can use almost any tactic that takes up time. In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster as long as they wanted but as the House of Representatives grew in numbers they decided to change the rules so that the filibuster could be stopped as long as they have two-thirds of the House in agreement that the filibuster should end. However, it was not easy to get two-thirds of the House to agree so filibuster often went on and on. The issue is whether or not it is fair to allow the filibuster to run the clock down and prevent a vote.
The history of the filibuster began in the mid 1800s. According to the Time Magazine, “The filibuster began over the issue of the firing of Senate printers, and lasted six days.” The Time Magazine explains that proponents argue the filibuster protects the right to free speech and prevents the Senate majority from steamrolling the minority, and ensuring that critical legislation gets a sufficient airing before being pushed through. In the 19th century, the senate left ending the filibuster up to the filibustering senators. When they have felt that they have been heard, they could give up the floor and allow debate to move on to a vote. Other people feel that the practice of filibustering has gotten out of control. They believe that bills are getting gridlocked and often there is fighting in the senate which causes the delay or stalling of important votes for purely partisan gain.
Some people feel that the debate should go on as long as necessary so all points can be brought up and debated and others feel it is unfair to waste time with the goal of running the clock down and preventing a vote. There are others that feel that if a Senator has a problem with a measure, they should simply vote their conscience and then let the world see how they voted. Filibustering is really just another way of blackmailing the other party and of refusing to take responsibility for governing and that is precisely the type of dysfunction that gives democracy a bad name. People that are for filibuster feel that it would exclude Americans from the legislation process. This is because bills and nominations move through the Senate and Americans will have limited amount of time to read the implications of the legislation. There would also be less time to communicate their views on controversial bills or nominees to their elected representatives. People feel that the filibuster serves to empower individual Members to participate in the process and for the American people to have their say.
I believe the filibuster should be abolished because it just wastes time for everyone. This is because people will be debating for hours and nothing will actually get done it’s just all talk. It isn’t right that as long as a Senator just keeps talking on the floor then a bill could not move forward. This shows that they can just bring up any random subject that isn’t relevant to the situation and keep talking for hours so a bill can not be passed. As an example, J. Strom Thurmond filibustered for twenty four hours against the civil rights act of 1957 (U.S. Senate: Filibuster and Cloture). Even in the presidential debate there is a time limit for each candidate to speak and address their issues. Given a specific amount of time anyone could prepare their thoughts and ideas so that they are able to make valid points within that time frame. The filibuster is given an endless amount of time which means they really begin making things up and getting off point since their goal is to really run the clock down. There also could be ways of revising the rules around the filibuster. Give them a set time to debate and a time for rebuttal. Once that time passes, all points could be taken into consideration and then the voting could begin. Hours and hours would not be spent on reiterating the same points over and over again. This would get rid of all the unnecessary hours spent coming up with pointless remarks and opinions that simply waste time. There is only so much people can listen to and absorb before they lose interest and simply stop paying attention. This has gone on for years and years and just does not seem worth all the wasted time.