[supercat]

Why do we want to make them do that work, though? Might they not feel it’s easier to give up and pass the bill, in that case? And do we want more bills passed, whether by pubs or dems? No. Then why not make it easier to block votes?

Because an old-style filibuster would tie up the Senate until it was resolved. The more time the Senate was tied up in filibusters, the less time it would have to attack freedom.

[Tublecane]

“Because an old-style filibuster would tie up the Senate until it was resolved. The more time the Senate was tied up in filibusters, the less time it would have to attack freedom.”

I can see that happening. But I could equally, perhaps more, see the laziness we’ve established causing them to filibuster less when it isn’t automatic. Someone must have done a study on the relative frequency of filibusters since the deeming to have taken place without actually taking place process was instituted. Throw in the contemporary unease with oratory, and I’d think more bills would be passed if phonebook speeches were requisite.