It seems for the past decade, a de facto 60-vote requirement has been created to get anything passed in the Senate. Combine this with parties that are coming to realize they have no incentive whatsoever to co-operate with a President of the opposing party, and the end result is gridlock and anger on all sides, as ordinary Republicans are told scary 0bama stories and ordinary Democrats fume over the apparent inaction.
A related problem is the ballooning number of confirmations that are held up through anonymous 'holds' and other tactics even more devious than the filibuster.
I've noticed a few diaries proposing to fix this issue, or kvetching about obstructionist Republicans.
First, and foremost, any reform to the filibuster or confirmation would have to take effect in 2013. This would be after the next Presidential election, as any reform that takes effect now would just be used by the wingnuts as 'giving Obamao the farm LOL.' I think this would need to apply to any ideas proposed here, or anywhere.
On legislation, I would replace the filibuster with a maneuver called the 'punt,' which would 'freeze' legislation until the next Congress (i.e., after the elections.) Legislation that has been 'punted' once would then be given an up or down vote when the new Congress reconvenes.
I would also require the creation of a non-partisan (as much as possible) guide to bills that have been punted, and this guide sent to every household in a state where there is a Senate election on or around October 1. It'd be complete with weblinks and an address to send a SASE so voters could review the complete legislation. (Of course, there'd be a lot of punting occurring after September 1 on an election year, but better some of the bills than none.)
This would permit the filibustering party to use the legislation as an issue in the upcoming elections. Should the filibustering party not gain control of the Senate in the upcoming elections, they have pretty much, in my mind, lost the right to stand athwart the will of the people on that legislation. Likewise, if the party controlling Congress loses the White House, they no longer have the right to completely dictate the terms of legislation. It would then be discussed in conference with the corresponding House bill and a final bill sent to the President for signature.
As for confirmations, the Senate ends up spending much of the first half of an inaugural year confirming the 2,000 or so people that need to be confirmed. I would instead replace this with a system where nominees below say the 50 highest (incl. Supreme Court nominees) are automatically confirmed after 90 days unless the Senate chooses to vote against that person's nominee. The blogosphere and other investigatory organizations would come across any silliness that causes a presumptive nominee to withdraw on her/his own accord.
I would also (and this is the tough part) begin to encourage candidates to name at least their high-ranking Cabinet people during the summer, between the primaries that are little more than formality and the conventions. This would provide the silly season with some semblance of serious issues to discuss.
In addition, after the electoral vote is counted in early December, I see no reason not to allow the Senate to confirm the highest-level nominees, or to 'punt' (see above) any nominees to the next Congress.
The difficult part here is convincing both parties to take the leap, as this would involve a habit change instead of a process change. I hope that the chance to see an entire Cabinet in place by February 1, with a nearly full staff in place by July 1, would be sufficient.
I do confess to not knowing when undersecretaries, ambassadors, etc., are all chosen/vetted/etc. I do believe that when candidates have between June/July and November to begin a potential transition, this time should be used -- and that if both parties (and minor candidates) do this, there is no risk of being arrogant by 'assuming victory.'
I now hit the send button, hoping I won't need to delete it again ...