• Veedem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why not just make the filibuster what it used to be and require the people who want to wield it to hold the floor for hours upon hours with no break? Some of it was silly. Some of it heroic. Either way, it required someone to truly be willing to stand behind their beliefs and, thus, was used much less often.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      I also liked the idea of a minority vote (2/5) to sustain a filibuster. If you don’t have 40 supporters, on the floor, then the filibuster ends.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      it required someone to truly be willing to stand behind their beliefs

      Conservatives don’t typically have these, and the ones that do know how unpopular they are. That’s why they fight against any attempt to reign it in.

    • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      This seems like such a fair way to add some discomfort to filibustering and making it a bit less appealing.