Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is challenging Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to be the next Senate majority leader, said Friday he wants to abolish the filibuster and ruled out a potential presidential run in 2028.
Van Hollen, speaking to reporters at the What’s Next conference in Denver, argued that legislation should pass the Senate with simple-majority votes and that the filibuster, which requires senators to muster 60 votes to pass most legislation, is “undemocratic.”
“My personal opinion is that we need democracy in the United States Senate and that means allowing ultimately a majority of senators to answer the call of the American people, so that means 51 votes,” Van Hollen said.
“My personal view has been all along that the filibuster is an antidemocratic — small ‘d’ — provision. It’s not in our Constitution. It was put in there by senators to enhance their power over the power of the people,” he added.
Fuck yeah.
This is a must. I like this guy even more, and he definitely needs to win over Schumer.
If we squander this moment and hand it back to Republicans, then we’re fucked anyway. I say we go full-steam ahead and not only show that we’re ready to stop the intentional gridlock in the Senate, and then start ramming legislation through to force Trump to look terrible when he vetoes bills that have 60, 70%+ approval, as Medicare For All does.
Democrats are looking VERY good going into 2028 as it is.
Honestly big of him to put aside presidential ambitions in order to try for this job that everyone hates and nobody wants.
Just keep the talking filibuster
40 votes to sustain a filibuster. If you can’t scare up 40 supporters or one of them goes to the bathroom in the middle of it then an immediate vote can be called and it’s toast. You’re right though that it should suck to carry on.
To an extent, I agree. The speech needs to be all about what you are filibustering and why. Going up there to read from a dictionary or a bed time story for kids should not be allowed. At that point, it’s all performative.
While the filibuster is responsible for blocking a lot of legislation, the Senate being inherently biased toward states representing a conservative minority of the population means that abolishing it is likely to impede Democrats more than help them in the long run.
You may be right about that, and yes we still need to do the persuasive ground-game of actually converting the people in these states to recognize that it’s the working class vs the Epstein class, but as it currently stands: When a good bill bubbles up from the House or from someone like Sanders in the Senate, right now these conservative Senators can block it lazily and without any public scrutiny upon them.
Removing at least the cloture filibuster means these bills can at least be discussed, good and bad, and in the public light. That makes a world of difference and hands a little bit more power and a little bit more responsiveness back to The People.
Bernie Sanders and Jon Stewart had a good little exchange on the filibuster @ ~ 41:00
My biggest beef with the filibuster is that I think it’s the wrong way of doing things. If you want to protect minority rights, then make laws or constitutional amendments that specifically protect them. The filibuster is just this giant hammer that beats away everything, good or bad.
And, this is just my belief, but it just seems unamerican. The Constitution specifies how to pass laws in the Senate. It needs a majority. The filibuster is a rule that, especially with modern filibusters that are nothing but votes, simply means you need more votes than the US Constitution specifically says. Yes, it’s a rule of procedure rather than the direct vote, but it amounts to the exact same thing.
I feel the same way. Look, at the end of the day – if we get the Electoral College gutted as we very well might now – if the American people vote in the majority to install a Trumpian-like figure, well then reap what you sow.
People are worried about the Senate overly-represented these red states, but we just say Kansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, North, and South Carolina shift heavily. Maybe – just maybe – how we appeal to these states is about to change.
But in the event we have a majority Republican Senate but a majority Democratic President, at least that President can still veto just the same.
Don’t use the filibuster as a band-aid which has only actually impeded progress more than it has stopped damage in the past 2 decades; instead solve the systemic reasons for what makes people vote against their own interests in the first place.
If Democrats make inroads in those states then it becomes less of an issue being gone.
Also if Democrats actually deliver wins for the people living there while it’s gone, then they might just reelect Democrats the next time around as well.
The Senate is already an unbalanced institution gamed by slave states. I’m on board. The problem is if you do it, you better give people a reason to vote for you.
Yea youre aight bro just dont squander the opportunity on some centrist ass motherfuckers who then it pass right back to a Republican supermajority that enslaves the rest of us pls
The filibuster is the only thing that kept Republicans from doing even more crazy shit then they already did. The senate is undemocratic in that an outsized minority of voters have an outsized impact on the majority. Every state gets two senators despite WY having half a million people and CA having like 40 million. In the senate they are equal.
The filibuster is the primary reason Republicans have any shot at all at national power.
Republicans thrive on voter apathy. They want voters to believe that both sides are the same, and that the government is incapable of doing anything useful.
What happens again and again is, Democrats will do the impossible. They’ll rally public support and anger and win great power on the promise of improving people’s lives. And then they manage to deliver jack shit because of the filibuster. Then they lose the next election because they never got anything done.
Yes, Republicans will be able to do more damage without the filibuster. But here’s the key - the filibuster didn’t prevent them from doing any of the horrific shit they have in the second Trump term. This is because Republicans don’t actually want to pass much legislation. The things they most want, tax and spending cuts, can be passed with a simple majority. They do everything else with the power of the presidency alone. You can gut a government program with a simple majority vote - just defund it. But establishing a new program requires 60 votes. The filibuster is inherently biased towards Republican policy.
The filibuster is the only thing that kept Republicans from doing even more crazy shit then they already did.
It’s also the Democrats’ excuse for never doing anything. On the net the filibuster like other causes of institutional gridlock is a tool for maintaining the status quo and that helps corporate stooges and fascists. In addition, since it prevents Congress from doing things it essentially forces it to abdicate power to the executive and judicial branches, directly weakening democracy.
Agreed. Its presence actually further enables the Ratchet Effect and reduces individual accountability from voters. Force them to debate and vote on the bill.
In Australia we use proportional representation to elect Senators within each state, and assign each state a number of senators based on their population. The lower house is voted for in seats, like US counties, by preferential voting.
This keeps the Senate as an effective house of review that has a different makeup than the lower house, but does not disenfranchise those in well-populated states.
If they remove the filibuster, then we need to uncap the House come 2028 elections. That makes the move not as polarizing since the House becomes much more representative. Additionally, maybe pass measures like Ranked Robin voting at the Federal level so that federal elections use a better version of Ranked Choice voting.
I just can’t picture how to make the senate work when the numbers are so skewed. Don’t have a solution but it’s such a glaring issue.
The Senate remains an issue until we have a constitutional convention - so we need to keep investing and pouring care in to each state in the union hoping we turn hearts.
The Senate should be uncapped as well based on population. The House is more geared towards the country’s short-term interests and the Senate our long-term interests, but it needs to be representative of the population as well.
We are one nation after all!
