Chris Dodd makes a stupid.
“I made a case last night to about ten freshman senators, you know, you want to turn this into a unicameral body? What’s the point of having a Senate? If the vote margins are the same as in the House, you might as well close the doors,” Dodd told reporters in the Capitol.
What the fuck does that even mean? The House has 435 members, many of them in specifically drawn safe districts. The Senate has 100, all elected statewide. You can have chambers represented by different parties, as well as chambers dominated by different kinds of interests. For example, farm states have greater clout and representation in the Senate than in the House.
So for Dodd, the Senate only has value if it's the place where good legislation goes to die? The Senate only has value if it obscures accountability and allows a party in a deep minority to stymie the will of the majority? The Senate only has value if it contributes to dysfunctional, broken government?
We have a system that allows 41 Republicans to obstruct the majority, then scream about a "do nothing" Congress. By using structural procedures beyond the understanding of most voters, they can seek to destroy the will of the majority, while suffering none of the blame for doing so.
In any case, as Ezra points out (link above), there is no historical nor Constitutional basis for the filibuster. The question isn't "what's the point of the Senate" without a filibuster, the question is, "what rules would make for a more effective and accountable Senate".
It's clear that the filibuster doesn't qualify.