Obama wants filibuster reform. Would it help polarization?

Obama had some interesting things to say about polarization and the filibuster in his interview with Vox. When the question of if government can work in the midst of polarization was posed, Obama mentioned the filibuster:

“Probably the one thing that we could change without a constitutional amendment that would make a difference here would be the elimination of the routine use of the filibuster in the Senate… The filibuster in this modern age probably just torques it too far in the direction of a majority party not being able to govern effectively and move forward its platform.”

It’s important to note that this is an answer about governing, not reducing polarization. If you watch the video from the interview, you might assume that Obama’s answer on the filibuster is a response on how to solve or ameliorate polarization. It’s not. This is an important point because reforming the filibuster and reducing polarization are at odds with one another.

For all its faults the filibuster is an inclusive political instrument. It forces majorities to listen and compromise with the minority. However, a new breed of stubborn politics has crippled the honest pursuit of bipartisan compromise. Filibusters are currently used at rate that essentially prevents Congress from addressing problems. While stalling a bill’s progress is hardly new to Congress, the frequency with which they are used today has undermined the filibuster as a means for compromise and transformed it into a means of complete obstruction.

This doesn’t have to be the case. The filibuster could be a process that incorporates minority policy opinions without serving as an insurmountable roadblock. Done properly, filibuster reform could create a system that reduces dysfunction while also assuaging polarization. For example, placing a greater burden on minority senators to sustain a filibuster would make it more politically costly to wage one. This would preserve minority rights while also greasing the wheels of policy productivity.

Unfortunately, those options are not on the table. Presently the most likely reform to the filibuster would be its effective termination. This change would make it easier for a majority to govern in a polarized situation but it would also make the Senate a much more partisan institution. It would eliminate minority debate rights, almost certainly prohibit minority amendments, and undermine the political inclusiveness that has characterized the Senate for most of its history.

Filibuster reform is not likely to occur in the near future. However, the way the politics of filibuster reform shake out, it is a near certainty that changes to the filibuster will not reduce polarization. It will worsen it.

Governing in polarized times is a problem that needs to be addressed. But we should weigh if change is worth the cost of further distancing already outlying political parties.

Advertisements

About Joshua Huder

http://gai.georgetown.edu/joshua-c-huder/
This entry was posted in Filibuster, Legislative Politics, Legislative Procedure, Polarization. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Obama wants filibuster reform. Would it help polarization?

  1. In my mind, the best way to incorporate minority views into decisions is to use voting methods designed to incorporate minority views. The plurality/first-past-the-post system we inherited from the British is antiquated and doesn’t scale well past two choices due to the well-known spoiler effect. There are, however, other voting systems designed to handle more than two options, such as Approval Voting and the Condorcet Method.

    The latter is of particular interest to this issue. Each voter ranks all the options, and the Condorcet Method takes all the options on the table and simulates a head-to-head election between every two possible pairs. This can be done for every ballot by looking at which of the two options was ranked higher. It is akin to a round-robin tournament, and is designed to select the option with the broadest amount of support. Thus, the winner typically requires far more than just plurality support, but be amenable to the vast majority.

    In our current system, each bill must be voted yes/no due to plurality’s inability to scale up. This often means riders and poison pills often get attached to the final bill. With the Condorcet Method, the best option can be selected from every single variation (including the option “do not pass this law”) in one single vote. This means option with “poison pill” killer amendments will be ranked last on almost everybody’s ballot, and this tactic is rendered useless. Adding amendments to appease a small number of representatives is similarly rendered useless, because all the other representative would rank such versions low.

    I could go on, but I think the idea is best explained here:

    http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/l_intro.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s