Modern Issues and Applications
Both majority and minority parties have utilized the filibuster and the vague rules surrounding it to pursue individual party agendas. For example, during the 113th Congress (2013-2015) changes to the “tracking” technique occurred when minority Republicans agreed to not filibuster legislation so long as the Democratic majority allowed them to suggest amendments. This restricted the Democrat Majority Leader’s ability to block the Republican minority from adding amendments, entitling the minority to two of the four pending amendments. The 113th Congress also considered changes to filibuster rules, such as lowering the number of votes necessary for cloture, however there wasn’t enough support at the time to obtain …show more content…
The number of invoked clotures in response to filibusters has been on a steady rise. For most of the 19th century, cloture was utilized only seven times. The number of clotures spiked between 1971 and 2006 to around 7.5 times per year. The trend continued from 2007 to 2014, where cloture was invoked a staggering 42 times per year. In the present day, most major legislation must meet the 60-vote requirement in order to circumvent the application of the filibuster. Increased polarization and partisanship in Congress appears to have implications of filibuster abuse for gridlocking purposes rather than debate and compromise (Donnelly & Rosen, …show more content…
In 55 instances, anti-majoritarian filibusters obstructed majority rule representing 60% of the national population. Regardless of population representation, the data implies the filibustering minority has great power to influence the contents of legislation before its passage into law. This demonstrates that anti-majoritarian filibusters continue to provide a voice to minorities, even if the filibustering party represents only a small percentage of the American population. However, majoritarian filibusters inform of the establishment’s paradoxical nature. Majoritarian filibusters occur when the minority party represents a large percentage of the national population. The data suggests that majoritarian filibusters often happen in a Republican-dominate Senate when a higher percentage of the American population concurs with the Democratic minority. Such disparity can be attributed to Democratic senators representing a larger portion of the American population than Republican senators since 2011. Additionally, the use of the majoritarian filibuster also appears to reflect party control in the Senate over various congresses (Eidelson,
Both majority and minority parties have utilized the filibuster and the vague rules surrounding it to pursue individual party agendas. For example, during the 113th Congress (2013-2015) changes to the “tracking” technique occurred when minority Republicans agreed to not filibuster legislation so long as the Democratic majority allowed them to suggest amendments. This restricted the Democrat Majority Leader’s ability to block the Republican minority from adding amendments, entitling the minority to two of the four pending amendments. The 113th Congress also considered changes to filibuster rules, such as lowering the number of votes necessary for cloture, however there wasn’t enough support at the time to obtain …show more content…
The number of invoked clotures in response to filibusters has been on a steady rise. For most of the 19th century, cloture was utilized only seven times. The number of clotures spiked between 1971 and 2006 to around 7.5 times per year. The trend continued from 2007 to 2014, where cloture was invoked a staggering 42 times per year. In the present day, most major legislation must meet the 60-vote requirement in order to circumvent the application of the filibuster. Increased polarization and partisanship in Congress appears to have implications of filibuster abuse for gridlocking purposes rather than debate and compromise (Donnelly & Rosen, …show more content…
In 55 instances, anti-majoritarian filibusters obstructed majority rule representing 60% of the national population. Regardless of population representation, the data implies the filibustering minority has great power to influence the contents of legislation before its passage into law. This demonstrates that anti-majoritarian filibusters continue to provide a voice to minorities, even if the filibustering party represents only a small percentage of the American population. However, majoritarian filibusters inform of the establishment’s paradoxical nature. Majoritarian filibusters occur when the minority party represents a large percentage of the national population. The data suggests that majoritarian filibusters often happen in a Republican-dominate Senate when a higher percentage of the American population concurs with the Democratic minority. Such disparity can be attributed to Democratic senators representing a larger portion of the American population than Republican senators since 2011. Additionally, the use of the majoritarian filibuster also appears to reflect party control in the Senate over various congresses (Eidelson,