Filibuster

 

Mrs. Robinson 

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose 

A debate isn’t always losing 

The Senate filibuster has a noble purpose. It is to extend debate and allow minority positions to be articulated. However under the current rules, the filibuster has been used to prevent action, not to extend debate. I would propose that a motion to end debate is always in order. Unless a motion is then made for a SECRET vote to extend debate, the subject advances to the floor (e.g. extending debate becomes an opt out, not an opt in.)  If called for, a SECRET vote of a quorum of Senators, not a public vote along party lines would be taken. And given that there are only two parties in accordance with Duverger's Law, unless one party has a filibuster proof majority, a party vote can block an action if its votes is public and votes against the party are punished.  (In less technological times it was done with white and black balls in a jar, hence the phrase “blackballed”, so I think a modern accommodation could be made). 60 SECRET votes to extend debate (I might personally choose 68, the mean of 100 senators plus one Standard Deviation, but that is  merely the statistician in me showing) does not mean that there would be 60 votes in favor of the act, but the intent of the filibuster is to preserve debate, NOT to block the passage of acts.