Here's a Great Filibuster Fix That No One Is Talking About

Throughout the most recent government shutdown, many Republicans wanted to ditch the filibuster to pass a GOP budget. Democrats wanted to protect the filibuster.

But is there a middle of the road solution that both sides might be able to agree on?

Larry Ward had a great idea this week at Human Events.

Ward writes, "Both sides are treating this as an all-or-nothing fight, and both sides are wrong. There's a third option nobody's seriously proposing, and it's so obvious I'm surprised it hasn't gained traction: reduce the threshold to 55 votes."

This is a great idea.

Ward explained how this could be achieved by giving historical context to the filibuster.

Here's what most Americans don't know about the filibuster. The 60-vote requirement is only 50 years old. Before 1975, it took 67 votes, two-thirds of the Senate, to break a filibuster. The Senate reduced it because two-thirds was too high a bar for a functioning legislature. They just didn't go far enough And the filibuster itself? It wasn't even intentional. It emerged accidentally in 1806 when the Senate removed a procedural rule, creating a loophole that allowed unlimited debate. The Founders intended specific supermajority requirements for things like treaties, veto overrides, and constitutional amendments, and wrote those thresholds explicitly into the Constitution. For regular legislation, they deliberately chose simple majority rule.

So this can practically be done. 55 votes could benefit either party depending, obviously, on elections.

Remember not long ago when Democrats were wanting to get rid of the filibuster by claiming it was racist?

They could stop with such ridiculous propaganda and just try to elect at least 55 senators.

More importantly, so could Republicans.

More from Ward, "Fifty-five votes would do a lot to help. It's achievable in a way that 60 isn't anymore. In a 50-50 political environment, getting to 55 requires either winning a genuine wave election, which arguably reflects a real mandate from voters, or reaching a genuine consensus, Newt Gingrich’s elusive 80-20 benchmark, and us peeling off three to five votes from the other side." 

"It's hard, but not impossible," he added. "It's a real hurdle, not an impenetrable fortress."

"Both parties have realistic paths to 55 votes," Wared noted. "Republicans could get there in a strong midterm. Democrats could get there with presidential coattails. It's within reach for whoever makes the better case to voters, which is exactly how democracy is supposed to work."

AMEN.

One more important item from Ward, "More importantly, 55 preserves what the filibuster was meant to protect: minority rights. A bare majority still can't ram through whatever it wants on a party-line vote."

"The minority still has real leverage," he wrote.

YES SIR. Protecting minorities is key.

This is a genuinely good idea that should be given a hearing.

"The Senate was supposed to be the 'cooling saucer' for legislation, not a deep freeze," Ward said. "Fifty-five votes preserves the cooling function while preventing permafrost."

He's right.

Let's do this. Republicans should, at the very least, strongly consider it.