[xzins]

There is nothing sacred about a rule that exists only on the senate rulebook and not in the constitution.

In my opinion it has hurt the nation far more than it has helped it.

A simple majority in congress should be the method for moving and changing legislation. After all, that is the constitutional method.

It allows us to quickly fix old legislation and to quickly respond to important events. If those are off target, then as already said, things can be quickly fixed

[Tallguy]

There is nothing sacred about a rule that exists only on the senate rulebook and not in the constitution.It's not like it came down from the mount on stone tablets. It's a senate rule that has outlived it's usefulness.

The senate no longer serves it's original constitution purpose anyway -- which was to represent the interests of the states. So you have to ask what purpose the fillibuster serves except to make today's version of the senate a kind of super-House-of-Representatives. I'd be for keeping the filibuster if we went back to individual senators being elected by their respective state houses, but since we're not headed in that direction, get rid of the rule.

[gleeaikin]

Is state winner-take-all electors in the Constitution? Without that we would have Hillary as President.