The author of this commentary discusses the tension between majority rule (a central feature in democracies) and how the filibuster - if not the design of the bicameral system - helps resolve it.
- Click here for the commentary.
- Click here for the commentary.
As mentioned, the filibuster is one of the primary characteristics that distinguish the House from the Senate. The House was established to more directly reflect the passions of the people—it moves quickly, and by majority rule. The Senate, on the other hand, was designed to “cool” the passions of the House and act with more deliberation.
James Madison wrote that the Senate should “consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom” than the majoritarian House. George Washington famously observed: “We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
Put simply, the filibuster is the check on blanket rule by the majority in the House. The filibuster ensures that the minority party in the Senate has a voice in the debate, because without it, the Senate cannot achieve the consensus needed to end debate and move to a vote—which requires 60 votes. The fact of the filibuster forces each side to work with one another, to come to an agreement about final language in a bill, or determine how to deal with competing priorities. In effect, it is a mechanism that forces the “coolness” and the deliberation that Madison and Washington envisioned.
