This spring, Harry Reid caused a stir when he said he’d finally seen the light on the need for real reform. Republicans are skeptical that Reid is serious about changing the filibuster, and there’s some grounds for that skepticism. However, it’s also possible that the unprecedented GOP obstructionism of the last four years may have persuaded Reid, as David Dayen put it recently, that the Senate has become a “super majority institution” that is “governed by a tyranny of the minority” and is “horrendously broken.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... _blog.html

#8) Decrease the Segregation of Members
Members of the Senate are segregated by party. They sit on different sides of the aisle in the Senate chamber. They sit on opposite sides of the room in committees. They caucus separately. Even the pages on the floor are designated as “Democratic” pages or “Republican” pages.

These practices may not have been significant in the past when senators lived in Washington and socialized on evenings and weekends. But now senators work evenings and then fly home, greatly diminishing the time for informal interactions with each other.

The segregation of the senators by parties unnecessarily deepens the partisan divide and we should end it. It is worth observing, by the way, that many state legislatures do not practice such segregation, facilitating the forging of informal connections between members of different parties.

Here are three specific suggestions:
1. Bolt down the desks in the Senate chamber permanently – fifty on each side -- and allow senators to choose desks anywhere they want on the floor among those available.

2. End the segregation of senators in committee meetings. One committee, Homeland Security, has already done this.

3. End the designation of pages by party.

All of this will come to a head at the beginning of next Congress and could require Reid to employ a circuitous path to change the rules by 51 votes, rather than a two-thirds majority. The GOP calls that tactic “the nuclear option.”

“I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them,” Reid said. “We’re not going to do away with the filibuster, but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place, we’re going to make it so that we can get things done.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/11 ... Page2.html

What Loh said. Make them do it the old-fashioned way. Make them bring their little urinals with them to the floor like in the old days.

My simple filibuster reform.

Just go back to the system where some asshat had to get up and actually talk all that time.

Just saying you're going to filibuster being enough to gum up the proceedings is utter bullshit. Make them actually do it.

Then make sure there are cameras there at all times.

With all the insane garbage that comes out of the mouths of these morons every time they speak for even a few minutes, they'd manage to wreck any chance for reelection in a couple hours tops.

Require a specific number of Senators -- I suggest five for the first 24 hours, 10 for the second 24 hours, and 20 thereafter -- to be on the floor to sustain the filibuster. This would be required even during quorum calls. At any point, a member could call for a count of the senators on the floor who stand in opposition to the regular order, and if the count falls below the required level, the regular order prevails and a majority vote is held.

It is essential, however, that proposals for reforming the filibuster be aimed at increasing the deliberative process and not at diminishing the right or ability of the minority party to participate. With every idea, members of the majority should ask: Would the proposal, when we are in the minority down the road, be one we could live with?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) infuriated Republicans during the campaign with his harsh partisan attacks and now faces the delicate task of mending his relationship with the GOP.

Some Republicans say Reid poisoned his relationship with their party by waging controversial attacks against GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. They were most angered by Reid’s charge that Romney had not paid taxes in ten years, attributing the information to an anonymous source.

"I do think he lost more credibility with Republicans because of his aggressive comments during the campaign,” said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and former leadership aide who served in the Senate and House.

“The make-up of the Senate is almost the same and I think Sen. Reid is likely to produce the same type of gridlock he did before because of his unusually partisan stance," Bonjean added.

Slightly off-topic but some of the hypocrisy that may be a hurdle to filibuster reform:

My simple filibuster reform.

Just go back to the system where some asshat had to get up and actually talk all that time.

Just saying you're going to filibuster being enough to gum up the proceedings is utter bullshit. Make them actually do it.

Then make sure there are cameras there at all times.

With all the insane garbage that comes out of the mouths of these morons every time they speak for even a few minutes, they'd manage to wreck any chance for reelection in a couple hours tops.

Actually, it's an indication that it is necessary, and it only requires a majority. They do not need a single Republican vote to refuse to re-adopt the old Senate rules again, and could, without constitutional difficulty, abolish and rewrite them entirely.

There is no constitutional basis for the filibuster, and there is certainly no basis whatsoever in history for the procedural filibuster. The filibuster is a side effect of the deliberate difficulty in shutting down debate in the Senate. Since it is solely a byproduct of protecting that right, it should require its exercise.

Other than tradition, though, the filibuster itself is not constitutionally necessary. Standard parliamentary procedure would be to operate by majority vote.

Oh, I know Loh. I just know how the other side will label the whole reform effort and how the press will run with that. What I don't know is whether the Dems (including Harry) will have the rocks to push through anyways.

One of the big risks is that the House is still in Republican hands. If their ability to block Senate bills is weakened, that might hurt any possibility of bipartisanship in the House that may exist, though we'll have a better idea in a few weeks how hopeful to be about that.

One of the big risks is that the House is still in Republican hands. If their ability to block Senate bills is weakened, that might hurt any possibility of bipartisanship in the House that may exist, though we'll have a better idea in a few weeks how hopeful to be about that.

Further, what possibility of bipartisanship? I can't see it getting any worse there.

Where will it lead? No one knows. But I'm afraid that the weakening of the filibuster rule, at least this early in the game, would be too easily portrayed as a provocation.

What good does the procedural filibuster do? It's evil.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) infuriated Republicans during the campaign with his harsh partisan attacks

LOL, no disagreement there. But at this point I'm thinking about Realpolitik, and while I would agree with the move, my feeling is that the timing right now is premature.

LOL, no disagreement there. But at this point I'm thinking about Realpolitik, and while I would agree with the move, my feeling is that the timing right now is premature.