A month and more ago, law professors Jonathan Gould, Kenneth Shepsle and Matthew Stephenson presented an idea for a way around filibustering by Senators representing a minority of the population of the United States – they call it democratizing the filibuster:
The filibuster exists only because a Senate rule requires the support of a three-fifths majority to cut off debate and hold a final vote. The Senate could change this rule so that ending debate would instead require the support of a majority of senators who collectively represent a majority of the U.S. population, with each senator considered to represent half of his or her state’s residents. This rule, which should be extended to all legislation as well as confirmation of judicial appointments, would allow a bare majority of senators to overcome a filibuster — if those senators together represented a majority of the American people. [WaPo]
It’s one of those ideas with a certain appeal to those who like complexity, but I think it ignores one big problem: The Senate was explicitly designed to provide equal representation to each State.
The problem may appear to be population representation, but it’s really the fact that filibustering exists.
