Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Letter to the editor: Filibuster bluster
0 Comments

Letter to the editor: Filibuster bluster

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}

"Majority rule" is a simple, understandable message. There must have been convoluted arguments when creating the "super-majority" dividing line.

First, there is the problem of defending why there should even be a super-majority. Next comes the gargantuan task of describing where a dividing line would be. It could be 2/3, 4/5 or even 9/10. It has changed several times. If the goal is to show bipartisanship, why not pick a crossover rule of "majority +/- one"?

Even perfect bipartisanship is unworkable. If 25 Democrats voted with the Republicans and 25 Republicans voted with the Democrats, there would still be no progress.

The original discussions must have been loaded with loose facts, loaded opinions and obvious power grabs, resulting in an arbitrary line in the sand. There is nothing "logically or ethically right" about a 60-vote rule. Discussions/debate in 2021 would be the same.

It make more sense to use the "majority rule" guideline. Voting citizens then have their say in the following elections.

Societal change does not follow a straight-line development. There always has been (and will in the future be) a ratcheting between progressive and conservative thinking (and voting). It takes time and reality-testing to develop an improved society.

Gene Johnson,

Polson

0 Comments
You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.
4
3
0
0
0

Tags

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alert

Breaking News