Is the U.S. Senate broken?

[BAMAPHIN 22]

On Tuesday, voters will elect a new Congress, replacing the one that's had the lowest public approval ratings in the history of political polling. Thirty-three seats are up for grabs in the U.S. Senate, which used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, a place where difficult issues were carefully considered, and debated until a consensus or a compromise was reached.
Today it's known more for deadlock, dysfunction, and political gamesmanship; a body unwilling or unable to resolve the major issues of the day: jobs, deficits, taxes and how to allocate $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts set to go into effect January 1st. A number of respected senators have thrown up their hands and quit, and others are speaking out against an institution many think is broken. One powerful senator had this advice for the voters.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[WadeCounty1231]

Well nothing is ever going to get done if you need 60 votes to do anything. Maybe some think that is a good thing, but I dont think the way it was set was supposed to have this filibuster nonsense.

[phins_4_ever]

Well nothing is ever going to get done if you need 60 votes to do anything. Maybe some think that is a good thing, but I dont think the way it was set was supposed to have this filibuster nonsense.

The Republicans have redefined the word majority. Over half doesn't count anymore. Only 60% count now. Unfortunately the Republicans will not be punished for their anti-American politics.

[Eshlemon]

Well nothing is ever going to get done if you need 60 votes to do anything. Maybe some think that is a good thing, but I dont think the way it was set was supposed to have this filibuster nonsense.

Budgets and reconcilliations aren't. Which doesn't realy matter for this Senate as it's not done one in 4 years. The only actual filibuster allowed and carried out has been Sanders all nighter against the WH-GOP tax cut deal. In the past if majority party gets some rumour from some Senate aides or the like about a filibuster the majority might do a pre-emptive cloture limiting debate with the cloture process technichly counting as filibusters. Reid includes cloture on about every bill. Reid either needs to grow a pair and make the Reps work and carry out these supposed filibuster threats, or stfu about the whining at LBJ only had one, I've had 248 filibusters.

The biggest problem IMO is the secret holds, whose reform of a 2 day limit has only changed into a revolving door of secret holds. And before the ahaha thats Republicans obstructing, which I'm not saying the minority party hasn't done, the majority uses as well to keep from voting for something while saying they're all for it. Congress is slowly changing due to the increased transparancy in this area due to technology with the Senate whose "evolution" is slower than the House's by design. For instance, saying one thing and making a back room deals when the meetings are on the public record access by anybody on the net.

And one of the reason neither parties want get rid of holds? The expanded calls for unanimous consent for bills which lets bill pass without Senators actually having to take a vote.