Alan Grayson launched a website over the weekend for people to sign a petition to Harry Reid to change the rules of the Senate. The new rule would require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60.
Since the Democrats regained control of the Senate, Republicans have abused the filibuster rule like never before. Until 1970, no session of Congress had more than ten votes on cloture to end a filibuster. Until 2007, the record was 58. But since Democrats regained control of the Senate, filibusters have skyrocketed. The last session had a new record of 112.
[...]
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to end a filibuster from 67 to 60. Now, with the Party of No blocking majority rule on virtually everything the country needs, we need to do it again.
Personally, I don't even think his petition goes far enough; there should be no filibuster. Period. The number of votes in the Senate required to pass legislation should be the same number of votes required to invoke cloture: 51.
This is what Matthew Yglesias wrote in 2005, when Democrats were the minority party in the Senate. He still thought the filibuster was a bad idea:
It is, by contrast, very easy to think of liberal initiatives that filibusters have blocked. Indeed, as conservative activist Jim Boulet Jr. has wisely argued in a memo to his comrades, the filibuster is crucial to conservatism. By his account, without it, majorities would exist to raise the minimum wage; reform labor law to make new union organizing easier; ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment; reduce greenhouse-gas emissions; and close the "gun-show loophole." I'm not a gun-control fan myself, but everything else on the list is a key priority. In the past, of course, the filibuster is most famous for its role in delaying the dawn of civil rights. Less well known is that it was integral to the defeat of Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993. If liberals ever get another chance to go for comprehensible health-care reform, the filibuster will once again rear its ugly head.
At any given moment, the filibuster rule helps the minority party. Right now, that's Democrats. But taking the long view, the filibuster is bad for Democrats. Ideally, you'd want to get rid of it at just the ideal moment. But, realistically, that can't be done; only minority-party acquiescence will let it happen. Now's a good time for Democrats to show some rare appreciation for the importance of long-term thinking and let the right shoot itself in the foot -- rather than giving them yet another tool with which to rile up their base.
If we want to achieve truly progressive reform in this country, and achieve it in a shorter amount of time, we must remove this undemocratic form of obstruction from the Senate rules completely. Although I don't think Grayson's petition goes far enough, it's certainly a good place to start.
Sign that petition (and if you can, donate to Alan Grayson).