Hope everyone enjoys the video! Do filibusters undermine or support democracy? Let us know what you think in the comments! And if you want to help us make even more videos like this, the best way to do that is by becoming a Video Lab member: bit.ly/vox-video-membership.
Democracy is an illusion. North america is called the Republic of the united states and the Republic of Canada for a reason. We wouldn't have lobbiests otherwise.
What would my favorite two KAOS villains from the 1960s spy comedy series “Get Smart” have to say about the filibuster? Let’s listen in… Shtarker…These 100 people are the US Senate. They pass laws. Siegfried…SHTARKER! Zis is KAOS! Ve do not pass law und order here!
Especially in a two-party system. Look at the split in the UK over the Brexit issue and how both parties have basically paralized all progression on that issue by simply filibustering everything the opponent party suggests. Here in the Netherlands we have a multi-party system. While having it's own drawbacks, one party filibustering most likely means they lose a lot of votes in the next elections, so in a way it's a more self-correcting system. That being said, blocking proposals and referring to "it used to be this way" to justify it still seems a favorite sport for some politicians.
@@OktoberSunset The Government DID have a majority, but members of Theresa May's own party (Boris Johnson for one) blocked all her deals with the EU because they wanted her gone. They sent May to the EU to negotiate a deal and each time she came back with a deal they simply said "unacceptable, go back." Only after May came back with a deal and was rebuked multiple times by her own party, they told her "we sent you to negotiate, but the "negotiation" in reality is "Look EU, we want X and you'll have figure out a way to give it to us." So while May was working really hard to get a compromise, her own party was laughing behind her back, because they knew those deals would be unacceptable even before the negotiations started. Filibustering is blocking legislation or deals just for the sake of blocking them, so this deadlock qualifies as filibustering in my book.
@@Trj113 Way to take something neutral and true and turn it into a partisan thing. I'm a democrat btw, in case you wanted to peg me as a republican for your argument.
Benjamin Smith thank you! I actually enjoyed this video because it shows that filibustering happens on both sides. Instead of making it a republican or Democrat issue they need to just get rid of it.
Fun fact: The filibuster has been around since the Roman Republic. Also, probably the most consequential filibuster in world history also happened in the Roman Republic. In 59 BC, during Julius Caesar's term as consul (basically a dual presidency that lasts for one year), Caesar was trying to get a bill passed through the Roman Senate that needed to get through quickly because of the way the government worked. Problem was, a politician called Cato the Younger started to filibuster the bill. Caesar ordered his arrest in a fit of rage. While he did have the authority to do that as Consul, he got a lot of immediate backlash from other senators who jumped to Cato's side. The arrest never went anywhere, but it was one of the main reasons for Caesar marching on Rome with his armies and being declared an enemy of Rome. How that filibuster and the subsequent order to arrest Cato caused Roman civil war is complicated, but I would urge anyone to look it up, it's really interesting.
@Jason Bailey that would be an appeal of the ruling of the chair like with the abolition of the filibuster on judicial nominations. So it would only take a simple majority
The fillibuster is a good thing, it makes sure bills have broad appeal and that radical bills don't pass. That's why Dems want it gone, they want to pass their radical UNCONSTITUTIONAL agenda
Majority party: "OK so it's decided: We wi-" Minority part: "According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly."
The disappointing part about this is that it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility because Ted Cruz filibustered ACA funding by reading Green Eggs and Ham in its entirety.
@@danielhawthorn6639 Nope, it's only bad when immature children, known as the Democrats, want it gone, because of their weird obsession to have total control. Modern Libs remind me way too much of Hitler, Stalin, and Castro. It's alarming to say the least. Don't you agree?
That’s exactly what the founding fathers wanted. They wanted to make it extremely difficult to make any changes as a result of bicameral legislature and checks and balances.
Burr was likely worried that a simple majority in the senate could silence any minority opposition by ending debate. A supermajority vote ensures that opponents of the bill must be ready to end the debate as well.
""This is the way we've always done it." - The most dangerous sentence in the English language." -The most dangerous pair of sentences. Because some who reads or hears it may forget that just because it has always been done that way, doesn't mean it is bad either.
"OK kids there's pizza in the fridge and a Nintendo in the living room, be sure not to use those in any way, we'll be home around midnight. Love you bye!"
The problem is that first past the post systems (including Americas) always tend towards two parties. Because voting for a third smaller party has the same effect as throwing your vote away (making it more likely that the candidate you like the least will get in)
@@ben76326 And even in a multiparty system you get coallisions that basically do the same thing but less reliably, people always tend to band together against the other group, even if the coallition shares little in common.
No, you get coalitions of parties that does the same thing. But occasionally, you will put forward a bill that splits the coalition, and that will go through.
@@andresmartinez8644 the great thing about coalitions is that the member partys has to compromise. So you usually don't have administration's like in the US who just wants to undo changes of the administration before. Coalitions lead to more stability less right left swings and wastes less resources.
I didn't, but I did pause when I thought I saw that they actually drew the senators. Didn't have time to look at all of them (also I only know some) but I immediately noticed that I saw one of the senators was Mitch McConnell
@@COIcultist The conservative south. The same guys who support the Republicans now and tried to secede over new states maybe not having slaves back in the civil war. They've been the problem child of America since the beginning.
@@GS-cj7rf I didn't say it was pushed by Republicans. I said it was pushed by southern conservatives who at the time did vote Democrat. The party isnt really what matters when where they are from is a more consistent indicator. It was the Democrats who pushed against civil rights and started the civil war yes, but more important than that is who is pushing for those sorts of things now. And after the southern strategy that would be the Republicans.
@@GS-cj7rf Well, technically it was done by democrats, but the names of the parties swapped later due to the movement of the rich from one side to the other (which is why you can hear the term Dixiecrat) and if you look at a political map during this time period it will show that the republicans were in the north and the democrats were in the south and that their policies didn't change it was only the names of the political parties that did, so democratic ancestors of (almost all) republicans from the south happen to be indifferent to slavery and racist.
@jeffg24LT21 It won't matter if you can't get the senate, and if Dems keep acting like a fool they probably won't have the house for much longer either.
@@nicdiaz6748 Stop trying to sound pseudo-intelligent. This video is just as informative as another source explaining the filibuster, and the topic is more or less neutral. Even better, why are you here contributing views to a source you don't seem to like. Fox news channel could do with some views.
It’s also a thing that would happen in Ancient Rome. I think Cicero did it against Caesar a few times.. Pretty sure Caesar was tying to reform the grain dole or maybe it was about buying uncultivated land to give away to the poor via lottery. Either way- the more ya know
This video explains the filibuster itself well, but seems to forget why it exists towards the end. How will we decide when the debate ends and the vote takes place? The supermajority vote guarantees that a large majority of senators agree the debate was complete, and neither side is able to silence the other prematurely. Sure you wouldn't have votes postponed unfairly, but you would have many senators being required to vote before the topic can be debated to completion. I don't think the system as it is now is very efficient, but it needs to be carefully replaced with a suitable alternative method of organising the debate, not just scrapped out of the blue. Watch carefully what solution is proposed; politicians will look for a method that benefits their faction.
That may make things harder, especially if the majority party doesn't have more than 50% of the seats. Third parties, single-issue parties, & independents can even hold up the system to get what they want.
Very nice of them to telling us the filibuster was eradicated in the house of representatives, but it would have been even better if they told us what came out of that decision and how it affected the voting process.
And they still vote on it every 25 years as well as Black people having the right to vote every 25 years. Smdh. If I'm considered an U.S. citizen why does this exist? 🤔
@@gamzeelmao1157 Because the United States is a deeply racist country. The fight isn't between racism and not racism, it's between oppressive racism and racism of low expectations
4:24 - I love that this video features almost every candidate that had policy reforms they wanted to push forward and that the candidate that ultimately got elected was a "Nothing will fundamentally change" candidate.
i wouldnt put a hard time limit on it per se, i would simply add a third vote option, and mandate that a vote must take place at the end of each senate meeting.. the vote options would be yes, no, and continue debating for the next meeting.. and in order to continue debating, they would just need that 41 votes (similar to the filibuster now, except they would need to actually debate) and by the third meeting, the number of votes needed to debate would be bumped up to the majority.. also, the senate session cant be dismissed without coming to a yes/no decision.. so a bill can never be perpetually stymied, but it allows time for debate.
@@tears_of_asariel3198 I agree that the filibuster/ debate must survive in some format. I like your option. The founders were concerned about "tyranny of the majority;" hence the reason we have two houses of Congress (population representation and state representation). Maybe a plan to limit the number of filibusters that can be used in a given year or session of Congress would work. This way, opposition leadership would have to pick and choose only the three most important legislative ideas.
@@rockmyworldmusic but the filibuster wasn't first used until 1805 and that was only rarely used then. It started to get more commonly used in the early 1900s, over a hundred years after the founder created the country and the Senate
@@loading9264 Are you suggesting to end the filibuster completely then? My point was more along the lines of saying that the filibuster is in keeping with the founding father's concerns about too much majority rule. It may have not been used as frequently early on, but it's still a good idea to have in some format.
I would like to warn you about changing rules of legislature. I am from Hong Kong. Here, filibuster was used quite often in past few years. Then the majority side (pro-beijing camp) changes the rules of proceedings. They introduced the mechanism to cut the debate and go straight to vote whenever the chairman sees fit. Now, the gov and the pro-beijing camp does not even care to pretend to listen to public opinion. When they have enough votes, they pass the bills, however controversial. This ignorance is what lead to recent protest. Be very careful changing the debate rule. You are letting out something very big. (We have a very rugged legislature structure. The pan-democracy camp actually has around 60% of votes by number. But only has 33% seats)
Hong Kong legislature is not elected on a one person one vote basis. If it is, that 60% support for pro-democracy would be represented and you don't need to filibuster. In other words, better have more democratic representation than using an undemocratic tool like the filibuster to fix another undemocratic problem.
@@bobfearnley5724 The U.S. Senate is not elected based on one person-one vote either. Every state gets two senators, regardless of its population. The House of Representatives is elected based on one person-one vote, each member's district has a roughly equal population. Maybe that's why the Senate has the filibuster and the House does not.
A thousand times, this "does not even care to pretend to listen to public opinion" Plus, the masses can be swayed to opinions they may regret later, it is good to slow the speed of that swinging to allow time for thought, consideration, and ... debate. Thank you for sharing Oizys.
As a democrat, I'm kinda annoyed at how democrats are being hypocritical about the filibuster now that they're in the majority. Though I support them in ending the filibuster
The reason why they want to end it is because they are pretty certain they will never lose another election and won't need it if republicans get back in power. The steps they are taking is to make D.C. a state. To allow 10's of thousands of illegal citizens to vote while continuing to demographically target them for votes. Adding justices to the senate. And last but not least are the dominion machines that stop counting at night and then miraculously flips who is in the lead at 3 a.m. Honestly we should ditch the two parties all together. Libertarian would be much better and drastically reduce government control.
@@jerrycarnes9487they are certain they won’t lose another election”?? Did you see the 2022 midterms, the first election after your comment?😂 2024 isn’t looking good for them either SO far, could always change but yk
Maybe limiting the number of federal laws on the books isn’t such a bad thing. More laws = more regs = more lawsuits = wasted resources. The filibuster isn’t nec a bad thing if it’s used as a moderating force. Sadly sites like vox contribute to the hyper polarization in the country, making compromise seem like a bad thing. Sad!
It really isn't that strange. Once a bill is presented, the merits of the bill are debated. Some complex or controversial items will of course need more debate than more simple, routine items. So, a legislature will need to decide at what point enough has been said. Think of it less like a vote on whether or not to begin voting, and more of like a vote on whether or not to end debate
@@yonatanbeer3475 Think of it like this: You and a group of friends are going to go out and eat. You've heard of a great new restaurant, but somebody else speaks up and mentions some other place before you can mention the new place. Before you can get the words out of your mouth, everybody agrees to the other place, without having the chance to consider the merits of the new place. Of course, with a group of friends, you can still bring up the new place, but with a legislature, you can't just take back a vote once someone makes a good point that leads to the legislature reconsidering the decision.
As a Brit, I have found it quite hard to understand filibustering in the US - your video was absolutely brilliant, thank you so much for making everything so clear.
@88Gibson LesPaul I mean it is pretty obvious in this case. If you get rid of the filibuster, the other party will be able to pass laws that you don't like when they're in power
My U.S. History class held mock Senate a few times and the same guy filibustered for two days. Some other amazing soul in a different period also filibustered by SINGING the whole time, so essentially the whole class also sang and it became an impromptu kareoke session. So yeah, we didn't learn about how to properly do filibusters but at least we'll never forget what they are due to those ridiculously amazing moments. 😂😂😂😂😂
No, that's pretty much how you properly do filibusters. Part of the 21-hour ACA filibuster involved Ted Cruz reading "Green Eggs and Ham" in the senate over and over again.
Simple error at 5:55, The U.S. of A. is NOT a democracy, it IS a Constitutional REPUBLIC. The "People" do not directly control the Government, Groups of people as Agents make the Government run. A Democracy would not _need_ a Legislature (house or senate) if the people as a Democracy ran the government. [there are descriptive, but most people just think of it the simple way.] Also, many register as Democrats because the U.S.A. is described as a "democracy" and where they come from democracy = Democrat; is the ONLY valid/legal party.
A Constitutional Republic and a Democracy are not mutually exclusive. A Constitutional republic is a form of Democracy. What you’re conflating is Democracy and DIRECT Democracy.
Here is a simple change: When filibustering, a senator MUST stay on topic and not repeat themselves mutable times. So many filibusters are filled with trash that is not even remotely connected to the topic of the bill.
Honestly I'd be ok if all of america could vote on individual legislation. Instead of picking people that campaign and promise 1 thing and then go right back to their own agenda. If they can tie in votes with biometrics of those that pay taxes or born in America. Not all democrats are anti gun but most americans have their opinion on it. People that voted democrat may have only done it for 1 of the many demographics that were targeted. Students with student debt maybe thought that there debt would be wiped. Parties will target for votes just to get into power and then it's back to shaping the country how they want and neccessarily the promises the made on the campaign.
@@chrisgehl2546 Actually it would. Lack of compromise is not the problem, both parties are seen by their base as too willing to compromise on many issues. And there are other problems besides the level of compromise.
@Alturnes-Knight Localization would help, but the real problem is that everyone votes for whoever isn't worse than the other guy. There is little actual accountability if the only alternative to one candidate is one that you are dead against.
Should have separated when you had the chance. The north would be prosperous like south Korea. And the south would be a backwards, ignorant, slave state full of Kim jong un levels of police state and poverty.
Its not breaking anything. It's the most beautifully designed system so that only the bill that has bi partisan support passes the senate, which is good
@@pradyut99 lol, it is anything but a beautiful designed system, it's a patchwork of laws, rules and traditions created by the parties at various points in history when it suit them one way or the other. You know that the stimulus bill was just passed with exclusive Democrat support right? Also it's amusing to hear that a 2 party system without proportional representation is beautifully designed
The idea is that it's supposed to force both parties to create legislation that is bipartisan, non-ideological, and caters to the center of American politics. The problem is that that's not even how or why the filibuster is even used. It's solely used for partisan politics and a matter of strategically taking back chambers of the legislative branch, or otherwise even the executive branch. The real losers always end up being the poor and marginalized, because we can't get anything done that will get them the help they may need.
Great video man, I've have never been into politics until recently and videos like these really help. I don't live in the US but your leader's decisions affects us all.
And this is why America politics are just freaking complicated as hell. Made by old men and now stuck with the old ways of the past when where trying to go to the future.
It’s amazing how quickly people forget. If it wasn’t for the filibuster, Trump and congressional Republicans would have passed many laws that Democrats did like, and they were able to stop it with a filibuster. If Democrats get rid of it, they will dearly regret it when Republicans take control again.
The electoral college should be reformed to where faithless electors lose their jobs. The fillibuster needs to go in this age of political gridlock where neither side has an amazing majority at any given time. This is also why i feel like nothing will really start to get done unless a party is really dominant like the Democrats 1930s to 1970s or Republicans in the 1800s
With that being said its not really the Filibuster is the problem! Those people who are elected is the problem! If they care about their constituents then everything should be okay..
I would LOVE an updated video of this! Maybe include the senators that are against it and why? Maybe pros and cons? LOVED this video, sharing it now :)
I mean it's one of those things that they just kinda decided to do that, and when they figured out that it was a problem, they filibustered the idea of getting rid of filibustering 😂
In the British Parliament filibuster is literally just talking out bills so they don't have time to progress. This is usually just the case with private members bills (legislation brought by backbench MPs rather than the government) which rarely pass unless the government backs them, anyway. Government legislation can't be effectively filibustered, since the government has control of the parliamentary timetable.
Thats all politics has become petty fights between parties I feel the whole party system and the us against them mentality has to be addressed globally not just America
the problem with ending 'us vs them' is that people generally picture 'us' in control and 'them' being quiet. One of the big reasons it has gotten so bad is that things have been so much in the air, groups that were traditionally quiet are speaking, groups that traditionally spoke are now having to share power, and both want the mentality to end but with their own coalition being dominant. Things only seemed better in the past because you generally only had one race/religion/etc running each country, so 'them' just sorta knew their place and 'us' had unquestioned control.
@@johanjarvinen I am not too familiar with European politics but I know that the squables between parties is also dominant in Australia. What are some things Europe is doing right? Maybe we can learn from each other?
Why can’t they put a 12 hour segment where both parties make their case, take the day to consider the oppositions side, then take a maximum of 16 hours to debate before a vote is forced? Seems like a much more logical decision. A bill should take no longer than 48 hours from start to finish to get a finalized vote.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Hope everyone enjoys the video! Do filibusters undermine or support democracy? Let us know what you think in the comments!
And if you want to help us make even more videos like this, the best way to do that is by becoming a Video Lab member: bit.ly/vox-video-membership.
@Vox
We aren’t a democracy. How many times does someone have to say that
Vox / 4:02, Im confused. So Democrats and Republicans basically agreed on new rules but it still became a huge deal?
Why weren't you pushing to end the filibuster 2 years ago when Democrats were using it to block Republicans bills?
Vox in my country this is happening the winning party can’t pass any laws because of the opposition party that keeps dallying the bills
Democracy is an illusion. North america is called the Republic of the united states and the Republic of Canada for a reason. We wouldn't have lobbiests otherwise.
Vox : These 100 people.They are the US Senate, they pass laws.
US Senate: We don’t do that here.
For me It's amazing that history of my country repeats itself in US
What would my favorite two KAOS villains from the 1960s spy comedy series “Get Smart” have to say about the filibuster? Let’s listen in…
Shtarker…These 100 people are the US Senate. They pass laws.
Siegfried…SHTARKER! Zis is KAOS! Ve do not pass law und order here!
republicans
@@tomaszzalewski4541 what country are you from?
“They can gain more politically by fighting than by cooperating.”
Truer words have never been uttered.
Especially in a two-party system. Look at the split in the UK over the Brexit issue and how both parties have basically paralized all progression on that issue by simply filibustering everything the opponent party suggests.
Here in the Netherlands we have a multi-party system. While having it's own drawbacks, one party filibustering most likely means they lose a lot of votes in the next elections, so in a way it's a more self-correcting system. That being said, blocking proposals and referring to "it used to be this way" to justify it still seems a favorite sport for some politicians.
@@tjroelsma If the US got rid of the 2 party system, we will never see a majority passed bill ever again.
Reagan Kelley If banned political parties PERIOD, the gridlock would end almost instantly.
@@tjroelsma Brexit deadlock is nothing to do with filibusters, it's because the government doesn't actually have a majority.
@@OktoberSunset The Government DID have a majority, but members of Theresa May's own party (Boris Johnson for one) blocked all her deals with the EU because they wanted her gone. They sent May to the EU to negotiate a deal and each time she came back with a deal they simply said "unacceptable, go back."
Only after May came back with a deal and was rebuked multiple times by her own party, they told her "we sent you to negotiate, but the "negotiation" in reality is "Look EU, we want X and you'll have figure out a way to give it to us." So while May was working really hard to get a compromise, her own party was laughing behind her back, because they knew those deals would be unacceptable even before the negotiations started.
Filibustering is blocking legislation or deals just for the sake of blocking them, so this deadlock qualifies as filibustering in my book.
Majority party: breathes
Minority party: *I'm going to have to filibuster that*
The Great CooLite change that to primarily republicans you’re right
@@Trj113 Way to take something neutral and true and turn it into a partisan thing. I'm a democrat btw, in case you wanted to peg me as a republican for your argument.
Benjamin Smith thank you! I actually enjoyed this video because it shows that filibustering happens on both sides. Instead of making it a republican or Democrat issue they need to just get rid of it.
you can only filibuster law changes
if 41 senators think it is not even worth thinking about to change to the new law then the new law must be wicked
Fun fact: The filibuster has been around since the Roman Republic. Also, probably the most consequential filibuster in world history also happened in the Roman Republic.
In 59 BC, during Julius Caesar's term as consul (basically a dual presidency that lasts for one year), Caesar was trying to get a bill passed through the Roman Senate that needed to get through quickly because of the way the government worked. Problem was, a politician called Cato the Younger started to filibuster the bill. Caesar ordered his arrest in a fit of rage. While he did have the authority to do that as Consul, he got a lot of immediate backlash from other senators who jumped to Cato's side.
The arrest never went anywhere, but it was one of the main reasons for Caesar marching on Rome with his armies and being declared an enemy of Rome. How that filibuster and the subsequent order to arrest Cato caused Roman civil war is complicated, but I would urge anyone to look it up, it's really interesting.
Majority Party: Lets End The Filibus-
Minority Party: What Did You Say? FILIBUSTERED
American Mapping! 😂😂😂
@Jason Bailey that would be an appeal of the ruling of the chair like with the abolition of the filibuster on judicial nominations. So it would only take a simple majority
Yup.
Majority Party: NUCLEAR OPTION!
Minority Party: Pika?
That would be the easiest filibuster to stay on topic.
Filibuster, gerrymandering, electoral college... american politics is everything but easy.
@Águila701 But they won't because using those to your own advantage makes you powerful enough to deny any changes in retrospect
@Águila701 No the electoral college should be reformed so that they split the electoral points according to pop. vote percentage by state
The fillibuster is a good thing, it makes sure bills have broad appeal and that radical bills don't pass. That's why Dems want it gone, they want to pass their radical UNCONSTITUTIONAL agenda
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv What's your take on Dems using Fillibuster against Reps?
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv Yeah, no. It's why congress has extremely low approval ratings (at around 20%.) since nothing ever gets done.
1:07
Me trying to win an argument:
LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT-LUT
the only correct response
I think they’re actually saying “blah blah blah blah blah blah...”
But same difference
I love the sound effect they used for that, i cant stop laughing
That's hilarious. If you do that in real life and people understand you, you can win any debate.
@@MrEricliu1000 Same it's the best
Majority party: "OK so it's decided: We wi-"
Minority part: "According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way
that a bee should be able to fly."
The disappointing part about this is that it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility because Ted Cruz filibustered ACA funding by reading Green Eggs and Ham in its entirety.
@@ballslover32stan93 dems used the filibuster 300 times from 2018-2020
@@gaigegrosskreutzmissingbic5591 Ok? That didn't relate to what he said?
@@gaigegrosskreutzmissingbic5591 So you agree that it's a bad thing?
@@danielhawthorn6639 Nope, it's only bad when immature children, known as the Democrats, want it gone, because of their weird obsession to have total control. Modern Libs remind me way too much of Hitler, Stalin, and Castro. It's alarming to say the least. Don't you agree?
Damn it Aaron Burr. Back at it again ruining lives...
Hamilton fan?
I am
👏👏
goddamnit aaron
In New Jersey...
Ahh yes, America. Where if I don’t agree with you and get my way, I’m gonna pout and waste your time so we both don’t get what we want.
Right....so LESS laws. That is the point.
As long as nothing happens the status quo wins. They are just wasting the time so they give up on changing it and so they win.
@@grumpyyellowfang3344 Win what? What are you talking about?
Don't talk about the EU that way!
That’s exactly what the founding fathers wanted. They wanted to make it extremely difficult to make any changes as a result of bicameral legislature and checks and balances.
“Burr wanted more debate in the Senate.”
So much for talk less, smile more.
Bora Ulutürk But he wanted to be in the room where it happens, well in modern day nothing happens in the room anymore
Burr was likely worried that a simple majority in the senate could silence any minority opposition by ending debate. A supermajority vote ensures that opponents of the bill must be ready to end the debate as well.
@@XSpamDragonX r/woooosh
HAHAHA LOOL
Don't let them know what you're against and what you're for
I’d like to vote on a bill.
Ted Cruz: I do not like them Sam-I-Am. I do not like green eggs and ham.
lol
You misspelled Schumer
@@martinkhamo8085 No it was Ted, this is his actual sentence he said as he spoke to the Senate
@@martinkhamo8085 Schumer is the majority leader
@@Lemon-jn7zf so
"This is the way we've always done it." - The most dangerous sentence in the English language.
"I know this causes regularly long term issues for new generations, but IT. IS. OUR. TRADITION. and we cannot change that. Period."
In any language in fact.
@@jacklu1190 Amen
Good thing the Constitution is genius and allows us to progress despite being the oldest active constitution 👍🏼
""This is the way we've always done it." - The most dangerous sentence in the English language."
-The most dangerous pair of sentences. Because some who reads or hears it may forget that just because it has always been done that way, doesn't mean it is bad either.
This is why George Washington warned us about political parties
@@your_backwards_world truly... especially today, our countries greatest minds do not wish to be president. and looks what we're left with.
"OK kids there's pizza in the fridge and a Nintendo in the living room, be sure not to use those in any way, we'll be home around midnight. Love you bye!"
Given the comments I see about this, seemingly everything is why the founding fathers didn't want parties allegedly.
and yet he helped institute a system that inevitably leads to parties
@d darko The problem in American politics is that we have two parties who are diametrically opposed on EVERYTHING and fight over it.
Someone needs to grab that Phil Buster and sort him out.
Yes! Bust the phill guy
Dr. Phil Buster
@@kronprinzwilhelmiii674 Dr. Phil E. Buster
give em a good licking guy
Worrywart Dr. Phil E. Buster the 3rd
I love how you guys simulate speech among senators, its funny and it somehow is perfect
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
It's perfectly accurate as well lol.
It’s to waste time, 😂
bob bub bub bub bub
Political party: *wins majority in senate
Other party: I’m about to end this man’s whole career
y'all are so annoying with these comments i stg
Lol
@@jakob4371 best* comment ever
Fixed
Political party: *Wins majority in senate
Other party: You have no power here.
Unless they have a Supermajority......
*I am the senate!*
Jedi: let me filibuster that
Mace Windu could’ve defeated Palpatine if only he’d whipped out the ol’ filibuster
Palpating had the nuclear option.
They didn't filibuster it.
may the farce be with you!
This would’ve worked easily if there were more than 2 parties
The problem is that first past the post systems (including Americas) always tend towards two parties. Because voting for a third smaller party has the same effect as throwing your vote away (making it more likely that the candidate you like the least will get in)
@@ben76326 And even in a multiparty system you get coallisions that basically do the same thing but less reliably, people always tend to band together against the other group, even if the coallition shares little in common.
No of there werent parties
No, you get coalitions of parties that does the same thing.
But occasionally, you will put forward a bill that splits the coalition, and that will go through.
@@andresmartinez8644 the great thing about coalitions is that the member partys has to compromise. So you usually don't have administration's like in the US who just wants to undo changes of the administration before. Coalitions lead to more stability less right left swings and wastes less resources.
"It all kinda happened by accident"
Like everything else in america
Unfortunately the previous leaders did not consider the potential abuse this could have on the political system
They Even Got Discovered By An Accident
Not really, no.
@@AB-zl4nh yes really, absolutely 😂
children in America after abortion is banned 💀
am i the only one who paused at the beginning to count and make sure there were actually 100
props on actually getting 100
The number of seats is 102 and they even left 2 empty seats to make it 100 members. The detail in the pic is just as good as its in the video.
Yes
I didn't, but I did pause when I thought I saw that they actually drew the senators. Didn't have time to look at all of them (also I only know some) but I immediately noticed that I saw one of the senators was Mitch McConnell
@@thechosenone1533 wait why 102? Are there 102 seats and 2 are empty, for some reason? Or is it a joke over how DC should be a state?
Uthman Igbin
I was thinking about it but was too lazy to check
Then what does it means to be a democracy?
- I dunno, i'm living in a two-party system country
Democracy always lead to a 2 party system.
@@eggman5586 Many countries are multi party.
@@eggman5586 no only in US
@@eggman5586 Check Germany if you want a democracy that has like at least 5 parties.
Countries with less than 5 parties can't be called Democratic!.. .. That include USA!
> Civil Rights has entered the chat
> Mutual Cooperation has left the chat
But who was voting against Civil Rights at the time?
@@COIcultist The conservative south. The same guys who support the Republicans now and tried to secede over new states maybe not having slaves back in the civil war. They've been the problem child of America since the beginning.
@@GS-cj7rf I didn't say it was pushed by Republicans. I said it was pushed by southern conservatives who at the time did vote Democrat. The party isnt really what matters when where they are from is a more consistent indicator. It was the Democrats who pushed against civil rights and started the civil war yes, but more important than that is who is pushing for those sorts of things now. And after the southern strategy that would be the Republicans.
The parties are irrelevant. They just go with their people. The republicans of today are the racists of yesteryear.
@@GS-cj7rf Well, technically it was done by democrats, but the names of the parties swapped later due to the movement of the rich from one side to the other (which is why you can hear the term Dixiecrat) and if you look at a political map during this time period it will show that the republicans were in the north and the democrats were in the south and that their policies didn't change it was only the names of the political parties that did, so democratic ancestors of (almost all) republicans from the south happen to be indifferent to slavery and racist.
Funny how filibusters became more common right after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
@jeffg24LT21 It won't matter if you can't get the senate, and if Dems keep acting like a fool they probably won't have the house for much longer either.
@@bassplayer2011ify Dems got the house and senate :)
@Serena Z don't hold your breath.
@Serena Z We won't deserve it, the three dinosaurs in congress will make us lose it.
@Serena Z The bill to remove the filibuster would just get filibustered 🤷♂️
To quote Hamilton:
"You are the worst Burr", thanks for not only killing Hamilton but for killing the senate
Though Lafayette says that line
@@maartenvandijk3629 yeah
@@maartenvandijk3629 they mean they're quoting the musical, not Alex himself
@@maartenvandijk3629 bruther he said to qoute hamilton, he was talking bout the musical as a whole
Bruuuuhhhhh
This was really interesting to learn about - I'd heard of the filibuster, but didn't really understand what it was about, thanks for explaining!!
@@nicdiaz6748 Stop trying to sound pseudo-intelligent. This video is just as informative as another source explaining the filibuster, and the topic is more or less neutral. Even better, why are you here contributing views to a source you don't seem to like. Fox news channel could do with some views.
It’s also a thing that would happen in Ancient Rome. I think Cicero did it against Caesar a few times.. Pretty sure Caesar was tying to reform the grain dole or maybe it was about buying uncultivated land to give away to the poor via lottery. Either way- the more ya know
They should also explain compromise because if we don't work together and compromise, democracy didn't fail us, we failed democracy.
This video explains the filibuster itself well, but seems to forget why it exists towards the end. How will we decide when the debate ends and the vote takes place? The supermajority vote guarantees that a large majority of senators agree the debate was complete, and neither side is able to silence the other prematurely. Sure you wouldn't have votes postponed unfairly, but you would have many senators being required to vote before the topic can be debated to completion. I don't think the system as it is now is very efficient, but it needs to be carefully replaced with a suitable alternative method of organising the debate, not just scrapped out of the blue. Watch carefully what solution is proposed; politicians will look for a method that benefits their faction.
Nic Diaz yeah your telling me...
The problem is only having two sides. Congress should be made up of more than two old parties.
Political parties should be illegal in general. The parties only profit from their loyalists
That may make things harder, especially if the majority party doesn't have more than 50% of the seats. Third parties, single-issue parties, & independents can even hold up the system to get what they want.
@@jonathantan2469 And the problems we have now are better? It may last but not for long, change must happen or else we will fall
People shouldnt vote for parties. People should vote for capable individuals
As it stands now, independents and green party are free to run and win anytime. I think their roadblock is related to fundraising and influence.
Child me: "Adults are great, and MAGICAL! They can get ANYTHING done!"
Adults getting things done: 1:07, 1:31, 2:05
Ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma
Nobody:
Senators: *wot-wot-wot-wot-wot-wot-wot-wot*
Majority: We're going to get this done
Minority: Hold my filibuster
Very nice of them to telling us the filibuster was eradicated in the house of representatives, but it would have been even better if they told us what came out of that decision and how it affected the voting process.
The senate: we should let black people have rig-
Strom Thurmond: NO
And they still vote on it every 25 years as well as Black people having the right to vote every 25 years. Smdh. If I'm considered an U.S. citizen why does this exist? 🤔
@@rlee1231 and that’s the thing! Why? All this equality has but we are debated on like animals
@@rlee1231 I think they just vote on it to renew and adjust if needed whether more or less
@@gamzeelmao1157 Because the United States is a deeply racist country. The fight isn't between racism and not racism, it's between oppressive racism and racism of low expectations
@@georgiykireev9678 it used to be
US Senate: by order of the Senate you are under arrest !
Filibuster: *i AM the SENATE !*
The filibuster can be so random they read phone book.
I wish I can be a senator, so I can filibust with my erotica collections.
K
LOLOLOL
Now they'll have to listen to you
I've heard one time someone entirely read war and peace.
Aunt Lollie's cookbooks are still the best to be heard
The mumbling sound is oddly satisfying 😄1:30 senator dies filibustering😂
Thanks for likes
For me it's oddly annoying :(
Q R How did you know you were going to get likes you crazy genius
He sounds like pacman
@@davidsonnow He edited his comment later. I've seen it before but I find this incredibly odd.
Animal crossing vibes fr
Random senator during debate: "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"
I approve of this depiction of the Senate.
If only Hamilton won that duel with Burr...
Boomslang AYYY
@Brianna Kirk I strike him right between his ribs
Hahahahaha
I know much more about American politics than my own country.
It's like watching a car crash. So morbidly entertaining
Where u from m8
@@eleonoramustafaeva1303 you were prob talking to OP but I'm from the US so it's like I've been in a car accident 😭
that's sad. americanization has to stop
Same, im from Canada
Trying to push a bill
"Get rid of the filibuster"
Trying to shut down a bill
"F.I.L.I.B.U.S.T.E.R."
That’s why it’s such a big problem. A fair system should take its place.
@@rib_rob_personal What fair system, if you know one please tell me???
4:24 - I love that this video features almost every candidate that had policy reforms they wanted to push forward and that the candidate that ultimately got elected was a "Nothing will fundamentally change" candidate.
Maybe we just need to bring back the debate part just maybe with time limits
i wouldnt put a hard time limit on it per se, i would simply add a third vote option, and mandate that a vote must take place at the end of each senate meeting.. the vote options would be yes, no, and continue debating for the next meeting.. and in order to continue debating, they would just need that 41 votes (similar to the filibuster now, except they would need to actually debate) and by the third meeting, the number of votes needed to debate would be bumped up to the majority.. also, the senate session cant be dismissed without coming to a yes/no decision.. so a bill can never be perpetually stymied, but it allows time for debate.
@@tears_of_asariel3198 I agree that the filibuster/ debate must survive in some format. I like your option. The founders were concerned about "tyranny of the majority;" hence the reason we have two houses of Congress (population representation and state representation). Maybe a plan to limit the number of filibusters that can be used in a given year or session of Congress would work. This way, opposition leadership would have to pick and choose only the three most important legislative ideas.
@@rockmyworldmusic but the filibuster wasn't first used until 1805 and that was only rarely used then. It started to get more commonly used in the early 1900s, over a hundred years after the founder created the country and the Senate
@@loading9264 Are you suggesting to end the filibuster completely then? My point was more along the lines of saying that the filibuster is in keeping with the founding father's concerns about too much majority rule. It may have not been used as frequently early on, but it's still a good idea to have in some format.
And only have miningful debates and not just reading dr seuss or from a phone book.
"This is the Senate, they pass laws"
Wow that's deep
Tyan *should pass laws.
Every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes
XXXD LOL
Uh, Yes. I already know that "this" is the US Senate and that they pass laws.
Do they really, though?
I would like to warn you about changing rules of legislature. I am from Hong Kong. Here, filibuster was used quite often in past few years. Then the majority side (pro-beijing camp) changes the rules of proceedings. They introduced the mechanism to cut the debate and go straight to vote whenever the chairman sees fit. Now, the gov and the pro-beijing camp does not even care to pretend to listen to public opinion. When they have enough votes, they pass the bills, however controversial. This ignorance is what lead to recent protest.
Be very careful changing the debate rule. You are letting out something very big.
(We have a very rugged legislature structure. The pan-democracy camp actually has around 60% of votes by number. But only has 33% seats)
Hong Kong legislature is not elected on a one person one vote basis. If it is, that 60% support for pro-democracy would be represented and you don't need to filibuster. In other words, better have more democratic representation than using an undemocratic tool like the filibuster to fix another undemocratic problem.
I don’t think you know how corrupt Winnie the Pooh is
@@bobfearnley5724 The U.S. Senate is not elected based on one person-one vote either. Every state gets two senators, regardless of its population. The House of Representatives is elected based on one person-one vote, each member's district has a roughly equal population. Maybe that's why the Senate has the filibuster and the House does not.
@@bxdanny HK is pro white pro UK. Deport all Chinese from HK.
A thousand times, this "does not even care to pretend to listen to public opinion"
Plus, the masses can be swayed to opinions they may regret later, it is good to slow the speed of that swinging to allow time for thought, consideration, and ... debate.
Thank you for sharing Oizys.
Imagine being the photojournalist waiting outside the senate for Strom Thurmond for 24 hours just to snap that picture.
My grandfather was there working for the Newark Star Ledger. I have his original black and white photograph of Thurmond.
1:00 I like that one guy on the right, just minding his own business
I somehow read that as left.
Actually, I think he's minding everyone's business, and recording it.
yeah that's probably meant to represent a clerk
@@1.4142 I read it as left too...
The liberals started this mess.
Aaron Burr: Talk less, smile more
Also Aaron Burr: People need to debate as much as they want!
He hated that the vote could cut debate short, because he wanted to wait for it!
This was a really meaningful video explaining a complicated topic very efficiently
As a democrat, I'm kinda annoyed at how democrats are being hypocritical about the filibuster now that they're in the majority. Though I support them in ending the filibuster
The reason why they want to end it is because they are pretty certain they will never lose another election and won't need it if republicans get back in power. The steps they are taking is to make D.C. a state. To allow 10's of thousands of illegal citizens to vote while continuing to demographically target them for votes. Adding justices to the senate. And last but not least are the dominion machines that stop counting at night and then miraculously flips who is in the lead at 3 a.m. Honestly we should ditch the two parties all together. Libertarian would be much better and drastically reduce government control.
@@jerrycarnes9487 so many lies
I would be furious if GOP uses reconciliation to pass bills 😆 I can’t, however, wait for legalizing marijuana!
@@jerrycarnes9487justices in the senate?
@@jerrycarnes9487they are certain they won’t lose another election”?? Did you see the 2022 midterms, the first election after your comment?😂 2024 isn’t looking good for them either SO far, could always change but yk
*Nobody:*
*That one guy:* 1:32
That’s My son
**wubwuhbwubwhubwubwhub** **initiate nap**
sounds like my wife
No it’s my son, I’m sure
@@elementalert5445 oof
Anyone remember when Burr told Hamilton to talk less?
and smile more
Anaclara Fernandes you cant be serious
@@matthewboyle1315 you want to get ahead
Barr is an American Hero.
Don't let them know what you're against or what you're for
"How can I filibuster the Senate when I am the Senate?" - Emperor Palpatine
Not yet!
Maybe limiting the number of federal laws on the books isn’t such a bad thing. More laws = more regs = more lawsuits = wasted resources. The filibuster isn’t nec a bad thing if it’s used as a moderating force. Sadly sites like vox contribute to the hyper polarization in the country, making compromise seem like a bad thing. Sad!
In Australia if two bills does not pass the Senate we call a Double Dissolution and we go to vote. Pretty sensible to me!
Geez, Arron Burr really messes up everything huh
The idea of voting on whether to vote seems strange to me.
It really isn't that strange. Once a bill is presented, the merits of the bill are debated. Some complex or controversial items will of course need more debate than more simple, routine items. So, a legislature will need to decide at what point enough has been said.
Think of it less like a vote on whether or not to begin voting, and more of like a vote on whether or not to end debate
@@thejimmydanly why have a vote to end debate instead of debate ending when enough people vote?
@@yonatanbeer3475 Think of it like this:
You and a group of friends are going to go out and eat. You've heard of a great new restaurant, but somebody else speaks up and mentions some other place before you can mention the new place. Before you can get the words out of your mouth, everybody agrees to the other place, without having the chance to consider the merits of the new place. Of course, with a group of friends, you can still bring up the new place, but with a legislature, you can't just take back a vote once someone makes a good point that leads to the legislature reconsidering the decision.
The idea of democracy by birthright seems idiotic to me
As a Brit, I have found it quite hard to understand filibustering in the US - your video was absolutely brilliant, thank you so much for making everything so clear.
Why do American legestlators like preserving tradition to such a extreme level?
because it males them money
Bad systems give them power, power gives them lobbyists, lobbyists give them money. Tradition has nothing to do with it.
@88Gibson LesPaul I mean it is pretty obvious in this case. If you get rid of the filibuster, the other party will be able to pass laws that you don't like when they're in power
Because it keeps them in power as decision makers.
Because 'America' is already a new idea... at least it used to be.
My U.S. History class held mock Senate a few times and the same guy filibustered for two days.
Some other amazing soul in a different period also filibustered by SINGING the whole time, so essentially the whole class also sang and it became an impromptu kareoke session.
So yeah, we didn't learn about how to properly do filibusters but at least we'll never forget what they are due to those ridiculously amazing moments. 😂😂😂😂😂
wow this was great thanks for sharing
Still accomplished more than a real senate
No, that's pretty much how you properly do filibusters. Part of the 21-hour ACA filibuster involved Ted Cruz reading "Green Eggs and Ham" in the senate over and over again.
"Yo Dawg, I heard you like filibustering, so I put an filibuster in your filibuster so you can filibuster while you filibuster." - Xzibit 2020
Simple error at 5:55, The U.S. of A. is NOT a democracy, it IS a Constitutional REPUBLIC. The "People" do not directly control the Government, Groups of people as Agents make the Government run. A Democracy would not _need_ a Legislature (house or senate) if the people as a Democracy ran the government. [there are descriptive, but most people just think of it the simple way.] Also, many register as Democrats because the U.S.A. is described as a "democracy" and where they come from democracy = Democrat; is the ONLY valid/legal party.
A Constitutional Republic and a Democracy are not mutually exclusive. A Constitutional republic is a form of Democracy. What you’re conflating is Democracy and DIRECT Democracy.
Bro doesn’t know what a representative democracy is
Here is a simple change: When filibustering, a senator MUST stay on topic and not repeat themselves mutable times. So many filibusters are filled with trash that is not even remotely connected to the topic of the bill.
But that kind of filibuster isn't used anymore, so that won't do anything.
None of this would be a problem if you actually had elections that didn't guarantee a two-party system.
Honestly I'd be ok if all of america could vote on individual legislation. Instead of picking people that campaign and promise 1 thing and then go right back to their own agenda. If they can tie in votes with biometrics of those that pay taxes or born in America. Not all democrats are anti gun but most americans have their opinion on it. People that voted democrat may have only done it for 1 of the many demographics that were targeted. Students with student debt maybe thought that there debt would be wiped. Parties will target for votes just to get into power and then it's back to shaping the country how they want and neccessarily the promises the made on the campaign.
None of this would be a problem if both parties acted like adults and compromised instead if it's my way or nothing.
@@chrisgehl2546 Actually it would. Lack of compromise is not the problem, both parties are seen by their base as too willing to compromise on many issues. And there are other problems besides the level of compromise.
@Alturnes-Knight Localization would help, but the real problem is that everyone votes for whoever isn't worse than the other guy. There is little actual accountability if the only alternative to one candidate is one that you are dead against.
The video: **mentions Aaron Burr**
Me: **gets my crown on** .......... I know him. That can’t be,
Aaron Burr, sir?
that's that little guy who spoke to me...
@@bezretmet All those years ago, what was it, 85?
@@justinthepirate4621 That poor man they're going to eat him alive...
@@bezretmet Oceans rise, empires fall...
At this point basically everything in american politics is broken.
What’s broken about it?
@@rl4923: A more appropriate question is, "what is actually working?"
correct, and soon enough everyone is going to embrace communism all courtesy of election stealing democrats.
@@NibblesTheNibbler well I do have an answer, everything. I was being sarcastic like you.
@@SureYouRight well, at least the things will get done. However, controversial, we will move forward or backwards.
"it all happen by accident" yep, just like this whole country
A revolution for independence was not an accident!
@Chandy Alexander TL:DR
@Andy P DC:DR
The South always hindering the progress and prosperity in America.
Should have separated when you had the chance.
The north would be prosperous like south Korea.
And the south would be a backwards, ignorant, slave state full of Kim jong un levels of police state and poverty.
The US: quite a few weird rules that actually break democracy.
@@sevilliane well, you know, by allowing the party that less people voted for take control.
Its not breaking anything. It's the most beautifully designed system so that only the bill that has bi partisan support passes the senate, which is good
@@pradyut99 lol, it is anything but a beautiful designed system, it's a patchwork of laws, rules and traditions created by the parties at various points in history when it suit them one way or the other.
You know that the stimulus bill was just passed with exclusive Democrat support right?
Also it's amusing to hear that a 2 party system without proportional representation is beautifully designed
America is a constitutional republic, democracy's always end up destroying themselves, there mob ruled.
@@pradyut99
"It's the most beautifully designed system so that no bill ever passes the senate, which is good"
The idea is that it's supposed to force both parties to create legislation that is bipartisan, non-ideological, and caters to the center of American politics. The problem is that that's not even how or why the filibuster is even used. It's solely used for partisan politics and a matter of strategically taking back chambers of the legislative branch, or otherwise even the executive branch. The real losers always end up being the poor and marginalized, because we can't get anything done that will get them the help they may need.
5:24
Fillibuster: I dont feel so good...
Great video man, I've have never been into politics until recently and videos like these really help. I don't live in the US but your leader's decisions affects us all.
Our leader decisions effect you because of great rules like this. Other wais the majority would be able to stomp the minority...like other countries.
And this is why America politics are just freaking complicated as hell. Made by old men and now stuck with the old ways of the past when where trying to go to the future.
It's not complicated. It's broken
@@120DudeSome It's not broken, it's a joke.
Why not all three?
Mr Grim Progressives want to embrace the future. It is Conservatives who still worship the Stone Age.
@@genericsnacks2459 Lol, and the Democrats dont abuse the filibuster currently??
US really is a weird country.
That last part really hit home. If the minority party can prevent the will of the electorate then why bother to vote. End the filibuster rule.
The idea is to have a smaller minority so the majority is not always stomping on just 49%
It’s amazing how quickly people forget. If it wasn’t for the filibuster, Trump and congressional Republicans would have passed many laws that Democrats did like, and they were able to stop it with a filibuster. If Democrats get rid of it, they will dearly regret it when Republicans take control again.
RUclips is giving a glimpse into the future
The electoral college should be reformed to where faithless electors lose their jobs. The fillibuster needs to go in this age of political gridlock where neither side has an amazing majority at any given time. This is also why i feel like nothing will really start to get done unless a party is really dominant like the Democrats 1930s to 1970s or Republicans in the 1800s
With that being said its not really the Filibuster is the problem! Those people who are elected is the problem! If they care about their constituents then everything should be okay..
Here’s a rule: every senator should only have one filibuster for their entire term
That's 100 filibusters tho
@@minioop2 that’s 50 filibusters for each party. Assuming they’ll filibuster along their party lines.
Thanks for this video, I've been wanting to understand filibuster for ages.
I love the little “blah blah blah blahs”
I wonder if Vox will do another video about how we should end the filibuster now that Republicans are in control?
Of course they will its vox!
@ everything they post is so slanted 🙄🤦♂️
@trev5.566 i can't tell the difference between buzzfeed and them
I would LOVE an updated video of this! Maybe include the senators that are against it and why? Maybe pros and cons? LOVED this video, sharing it now :)
I'm here to report that, nothing changed in 3yrs.
I love how these videos just shows how the "land of freedom" has really undemocratic processes
The Senate when it comes to actually need to pass a law, and they can't filibuster:😭😭😭
I mean it's one of those things that they just kinda decided to do that, and when they figured out that it was a problem, they filibustered the idea of getting rid of filibustering 😂
Azophi yes its hopeless 😩
Man i didnt know fillibuster was so interesting i thought it was a funny cat in a game called The Battle Cats
In the British Parliament filibuster is literally just talking out bills so they don't have time to progress. This is usually just the case with private members bills (legislation brought by backbench MPs rather than the government) which rarely pass unless the government backs them, anyway. Government legislation can't be effectively filibustered, since the government has control of the parliamentary timetable.
WE are not a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. Does not mean we need to keep the filibuster in the Senate.
This was a very good piece,
I think you dropped part of your sentence somewhere
Thats all politics has become petty fights between parties I feel the whole party system and the us against them mentality has to be addressed globally not just America
what do u propose lol
@@deQI-vx3pv genocide
the problem with ending 'us vs them' is that people generally picture 'us' in control and 'them' being quiet. One of the big reasons it has gotten so bad is that things have been so much in the air, groups that were traditionally quiet are speaking, groups that traditionally spoke are now having to share power, and both want the mentality to end but with their own coalition being dominant. Things only seemed better in the past because you generally only had one race/religion/etc running each country, so 'them' just sorta knew their place and 'us' had unquestioned control.
You're the ones who are dysfunctional, not the rest of the world, and it has nothing to do with political parties. Regards, Europe.
@@johanjarvinen I am not too familiar with European politics but I know that the squables between parties is also dominant in Australia. What are some things Europe is doing right? Maybe we can learn from each other?
We had the same law in Poland in the 17th century. It was called "Liberum Veto". But only 1 senate member was required, so everyone had that power :P.
If there wasn’t a filibuster wouldn’t laws and policies flip back and forth depending on which party has a majority in the senate?
Why can’t they put a 12 hour segment where both parties make their case, take the day to consider the oppositions side, then take a maximum of 16 hours to debate before a vote is forced? Seems like a much more logical decision. A bill should take no longer than 48 hours from start to finish to get a finalized vote.
So you want to put time limits on senate debate.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 yes
All of this wouldn’t happen if someone doesn’t apply the “Unlimited Debate” rule
Thanks Aaron, you convinced me that you’re the worst VP ever
Not even the UK's system is so ridiculous
We are a Republic not a Democracy.
"Why actually decide on something when you can filibuster?" -The Senate
Problems only a 2 party system has.
And 2 party systems are 1 pary systems with an excuse as the second party.
Fillerbustering, as talking for to long, was used back in the roman republic.