If Democrats win the Presidency, House, and remain in control of the Senate, should we eliminate the filibuster?

[Polybius]

Simple poll. Assuming Harris wins, and we control the House and Senate, should we eliminate the filibuster in the Senate? If we do stay in control of the Senate, at best we'll have 51 seats. The threat of a filibuster will lurk, unless it's eliminated.

52 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, eliminate filibuster - it goes against democracy
	45 (87%)
	No, keep the filibuster - it had served its purpose in the past, and we may need it in the future
	4 (8%)
	Modify it - perhaps limit the opposing Party to 6 filibusters per year?
	3 (6%)
	My feelings are so mixed on the filibuster that I can not vote in this poll - love/hate relationship
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[RJ_MacReady]

1. yes absolutely

Then go full speed ahead on passing reforms, adding new blue states, protecting voting and abortion rights, just for starters.

[Prairie Gates]

2. If I could eat all the chocolate I want without ruining my teeth or gaining weight

Should I eat dark or milk chocolate?

[Polybius]

3. White chocolate is good too

[Prairie Gates]

7. White chocolate is trash

[krawhitham]

15. Post of the Day

[themaguffin]

4. Yes and here's my main reason

It honestly is irrelevant to the GOP... they don't care about governing. They get their tax cuts and judges anyway.

This impacts Democrats because Democrats actually pass actual legislation.

[dsc]

5. Heck yes

[Dorian Gray]

6. I know why we want to do this....

but could it backfire on us in the future? I think we need to play that out a little more before we jump on this.

[standingtall]

11. Yes but not doing it could also backfire on us

We have to do it the first time we have a chance or we may not get a chance to do it again for along time.

Sure republicans could get the majority after we end the filibuster and repeal good democratic legislation in the absent of the filibuster, but there is also a scenario where we don't end the filibuster and then republicans do it first. Not to mention we would've completely failed democratic voters if we don't end the filibuster and allow the stuff republicans have done in the last 5 years to stand. We also won't be able to make D.C. or Puerto Rico States without ending the filibuster. So refusing to end the filibuster would cost us 4 potential Democratic Senators which would be crucial to preserving good Democratic legislation post filibuster.

[Liberal In Texas]

8. Yes, it's abused.

The repubs don't even actually filibuster, they just say the word and that's it.

[FBaggins]

9. This election is still quite close

There's a non-zero chance that we end up in the minority in both chambers with a Trump second term.

One wonders how the "goes against Democracy" voters will feel when it's the only thing between us and unfettered Trumpism.

One prays we never have to learn that lesson... though frankly we should have when the lack of the filibuster gave us three Trump judges.

[maxsolomon]

10. If we put the cart before the horse, will it improve steering?

The Dem leadership in the Senate does not want to eliminate the filibuster.

[sanatanadharma]

12. The filibuster does not rise to the 'original intent' bar

The filibuster can not be defended via the Constitution; it is a simple Senate rule that has ruled us for our lifetimes. It is a habit, not a right.
If the filibuster is actually for the purpose of continuing debate upon an issue, take the podium and state your case. When everyone tires of talking, the voting begins.
Filibuster means no one (or at least one) doesn't go home now.

[tinrobot]

13. The Senate itself "goes against democracy"

When Wyoming's 600K residents have as much power as California's 39M residents, it's already undemocratic.

Eliminating the filibuster just puts the Senate an inch or two closer to something resembling democracy.

[krawhitham]

14. It would be a very bad idea

Make a carve-out for two votes, Voting rights & Women's health (just like SCOTUS votes are carved out now). After that force them to do old school filibusters, they will break 99% of the time, only issues I see them not breaking on is Voting rights, Women's health, & border security


Just imagine the damage trump would have done in his first 2 years if he did not have a filibuster to deal with. The ACA would be gone, so would NATO, and we would currently have a National abortion bad


Getting rid of the fillibuster would allow one party who has just one good election cycle to completely reshape America, that is not a good thing. The GOP just had a good election cycle in 2016. If they have another they will fully enact Project 2025. if they don't have a fillibuster

[standingtall]

16. Adding States would make it very hard for republicans

get the majority without moving to the center. Making a carve out for Voting rights and Women's health could just as easily be repealed by a future republican majority anyway and a future republican majority could make their own carve out exceptions. The best way to go is to end the filibuster completely and add States. Btw Trump talked about ending the filibuster to repeal the ACA, but it was a moot point, because they didn't have a majority vote to repeal it thanks to 1 republican John McCain voting against it. So the ACA would've survived the Trump Presidency even if there was no filibuster.

[Polybius]

20. I totally see your point

I'm torn on this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Kill it dead, Dead, DEAD, then burn it and shoot the ashes into space.

Without killing the filibuster, the majority of Harris’ agenda will be DOA.

No codifying Roe
No raising the minimum wage (can’t be included in a reconciliation bill IIRC)
No voting rights protection
No assault weapon ban
No court expansion or reform
No card check for union certification (bypassing elections)
No healthcare reform/expansion of prescription price negotiating

[elocs]

18. Yes, but beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences when things don't always work out like you hope.

And don't cry about it when that happens.

[GoCubsGo]

19. It doesn't need to be modified. It needs to be unmodified.

I have no issue with the filibuster in it's original form. You know...where they have to actually stand up there and speak. The problem with it now is all these "anonymous holds" and other shit they have now. Get rid of all of that garbage, and the filibuster shouldn't be an issue.

[MurrayDelph]

21. Flip the rules

Make the minority have to vote to sustain rather than make the majority have to override.