Where does your Senator stand?
http://governmentevolved.org/...!
Detailed breakdowns of every Senators' position on filibuster reform in one place via our Senate Snapshot tool for you to check out.
Filibuster Reform vs. The Nuclear Option.
When researching the data for this project I noticed a trend: supporters would typically refer to the issue as filibuster reform, while opponents would refer to the issue as the "nuclear option". Due to this dynamic, I found that the arguments presented by each side ignored the legitimate concerns of their opposing peers.
The "nuclear option" and filibuster reform are related to each other, but they are not the same thing. The "nuclear option" refers to the process by which Senators circumvent Senate rules and appeal to the highest law in the land, the Constitution, which allows the Senate to create its own rules via a simple majority. While filibuster reform would be the end result of a such a rule change.
By focusing their comments on the nuclear option, opponents of filibuster reform are able to dodge the question at hand which is: should Senators actually have to hold the floor in order to filibuster? In this way, they avoid going on record against an idea that is popular with the public.
Conversely, supporters of filibuster reform are reluctant to talk about how they plan on implementing rules change. If they work within the construct of the standing Senate Rules, they would need 67 votes in order to implement a "talking filibuster" provision. The difficulty of crafting an agreement between 67 Senators is not lost on them so they leave the door open for, and sometimes threaten to use, the nuclear option. This strategy allows supporters to deflect concerns about the precedent using the "nuclear option" would establish.
Perhaps the two sides should stop talking past one another.
Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:49 PM PT: The map has been updated to make everything more clear. Check it out now!