Should we require 3/5 of senators present v 3/5 duly elected senators to maintain the fillibuster?

[ColinC]

If Manchin's position is "we didn't do it like this before, how would he feel about making it the way it was before?"

That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as "cloture." In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the 100-member Senate.


Changing the rules from 60 senators to 2/3rds present would allow the Democrats to wait out Republicans until they make up 2/3rds of the Senators present. Or simply change the rules to require 3/5ths present instead of duly elected. Could this work?

The difference between the old and the new is, of course, that the new rules do not require the opposition to be present, whereas the old rules would. The tweak to "senators present" vs duly elected might be minor enough to satisfy sinema and manchin. It also might be major enough for us to eventually pass voting rights.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, we should require 3/5ths of senators present instead of all duly elected. Manchin will likely get behind this.
	0 (0%)
	No. We should keep the Senate rules as they are. Manchin and Sinema won't budge no matter what.
	1 (25%)
	End the fillibuster entirely and require only 51 votes to end and start debate for a bill.
	3 (75%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Xipe Totec]

1. I think that's already the rule. nt

[ColinC]

3. No.

As stated in the post, 3/5ths duly elected is required. They do not need to be present to block legislation.

For instance, with the current bill. As long as 60 senators do not show up, a bill cannot move forward at all. This change would require them to be there.

[madville]

4. Tweaking the rules isn't on the table

If it was Manchin and Sinema would just allow the carve out, everything else is just a gimmick or fantasy.

[ColinC]

5. You are probably right.

Of course Manchin has been sympathetic to bringing back the talking fillibuster. Requiring 3/5ths present vs duly elected would do just that. I imagine he might get behind that. And with the pressure from Emily's list now, maybe Sinema will too.

[tritsofme]

6. Manchin isn't going to support changing the rules by a simple majority.

It takes 67 votes to formally change Senate rules, unless a proposal can gain that level of support, it’s not going to happen this Congress.

[ColinC]

8. Wait did his recent statement say exactly what you stated?

Is that what he meant by "You can't break a rule to change a rule?"

[tritsofme]

10. Yes, that's what he's referring to.

[ColinC]

11. bleh...

[Fullduplexxx]

9. Whatever it is manchin will oppose it