What if the onus of the filibuster was placed on the minority instead of majority?

[W_HAMILTON]

Instead of having 60 votes to pass a filibuster, what if the minority were required to have 40 votes to continue a filibuster?

Some may say this is the same thing, but it is not. I watched a nominee get filibustered by 33 votes on the news -- the vote was like 52-33. In my proposal, if the 40-vote rule were in place, the filibuster would be broken and they would not be allowed to filibuster on that vote again, paving the way to the up-or-down vote. If the filibustering party cannot come up with 40 votes, then all it takes is a majority of votes to end the debate. This means that if only 81 Senators are present, they can call a vote to end the filibuster; if it is 41-40, the debate is ended, and the full vote can be scheduled. This keeps the filibuster rule in place for truly significant situations, but it would require the full devotion of Senators to remain there to ensure that they have the votes to continue a filibuster.

I'm sure there are some downsides, but I am just throwing this idea out there.