Filibuster is more like a ‘filibluster’
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
“Majority rule” is such a simple understandable message. There must have been convoluted arguments in attempting to create a “supermajority” dividing line.
First, there is the problem of defending why there should even be a “supermajority.” Next comes the gargantuan task of describing where a fair dividing line would be. It could be 2/3 or 5/6 or even 9/10. If the goal is to show that there is bi-partisanship, why not pick a cross-over rule of “majority plus or minus one”?
Even perfect bi-partisanship is unworkable. If 25 Democrats voted with the Republicans and 25 Republicans voted with the Democrats, there would be no progress.
The original discussions must have been loaded with loose facts, loaded opinions and obvious power grabs. Any final result becomes an arbitrary line-in-the-sand. There is nothing “right” about a 60-vote rule. Discussions in 2021 would be the same.
It makes more sense to use the “majority rule” guideline. Let voting citizens have their say in the following elections.
Societal change does not follow a straight-line development. There always has been (and will in the future be) a ratcheting between progressive and conservative thinking (and voting). It takes time and reality-testing to develop an improved society.
Gene Johnson
Polson
