I am reaching out to the DKos brain trust to see if this idea has any merit. Like all of you I have been frustrated by the Repubs use of the filibuster. But part of me thinks it should be kept for when they take back the Senate (in 2 or 20 years it will tragically happen at some point - this country did re-elected Bush!?!?!).
My idea is to reverse the way a filibuster works:
If someone calls for unanimous consent and there is an objection instead of the current system requiring 60 votes for an override - The new rule would require 40 votes to sustain the objection.
Now this might not sound like a big deal but take for example the case of Bunning objection to the unemployment extension. Instead of just one retiring Senator being able to stop things all 40 repubs would have to go on recorded voting against extending unemployment benefits. As opposed to simple not taking a vote which they can do now since an absent vote = a no vote in the current system.
It would require the minority party to have their entire caucus either in the chambers or close enough by to get there for a vote any time congress is in session. It brings some weight and pain back into the process that was lost.
As it is now just the threat of a Filibuster is required not the place of actually standing on the floor and having to talk for hours.
I think this simple step would improve things greatly and also be almost impossible for the Repubs to effectively attack as over throwing the rules of the Senate (although they would try) as out right repealing the filibuster would. It could be both a procedural and political win for the democrats. Let me know what you think?
-----
I am Dyslexic, it is a battle (which I often lose) to write without error. Thanks in advance for putting up with my mistakes