US Senate where filibusters won't work

[acgoldis]

Hi! I'll get back to the Attack of the Jedi Clones timeline in a little while. But first, I thought of this.

According to Wikipedia:

"In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[13] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[13] "

How would the country have developed if the 3/5 filibuster rule never existed, so people couldn't stall votes whenever they wanted?

ACG

 

[Sam]

How would the country have developed if the 3/5 filibuster rule never existed, so people couldn't stall votes whenever they wanted?

ACG

Faster Civil Rights legislation?

 

[acgoldis]

I did a quick check -- it looks like the vast majority of the filibustering has taken place over the past 50 years or so, especially over the past 20. It almost seems like this should wind up in the After 1900 forum since there would be minimal effect earlier.

 

[SlideAway]

Hi! I'll get back to the Attack of the Jedi Clones timeline in a little while. But first, I thought of this.

According to Wikipedia:

"In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[13] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[13] "

How would the country have developed if the 3/5 filibuster rule never existed, so people couldn't stall votes whenever they wanted?

ACG

Earlier Civil Rights legislation, for one.

You'd probably get some major differences in the Clinton Administration. Clinton's health care reform effort may well have passed, though, admittedly, that effort never got to 50 votes. The 60-vote need, however, made it very difficult to drum up support.

So you might get smaller losses, which *might* keep the Democrats narrowly holding onto the House. If that happens then no impeachment and a more productive second term.

How that affects Al Gore's 2000 campaign isn't entirely clear, but he may well be able to win if Lewinskygate hadn't gone as far as it did.

Assuming no changes in the Clinton Administration, then Bush would have made his tax cuts permanent, although it would also be easier for Obama to get them raised again, and Congress would have already passed HCR and Cap and Trade would look far likelier to pass.

 

[The Kiat]

On a side note: I recall that a few years back, when the Repomen had majority in the Senate, they tried to do away with filibustering. At the time, I thought "and I wonder what the Repomen would do without a fillibuster when the Dumbocrats get majority".

 

[Workable Goblin]

As acgoldis says, the effects would not really be strongly felt until the last 20-50 years--before then, filibusters were not the same legislation killers they are today.

However, there might be a few interesting changes--wiki suggests that an attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States failed in 1841 because of the threat of a filibuster. How would a proper central bank have changed the economy of the US between 1841 and 1911?

 

[Philip]

On a side note: I recall that a few years back, when the Repomen had majority in the Senate, they tried to do away with filibustering. At the time, I thought "and I wonder what the Repomen would do without a fillibuster when the Dumbocrats get majority".

This is nothing new. The party in power almost always considers/threatens to make the change. The last time there was an actual change was mid 1970s. The Dems lowered the required number of votes for cloture from 2/3 (67 votes) to 3/5 (60 votes) of the total. It should not be a surprise that the Dems held 61 seats at the time.

 

[kruscica]

All true points!

On a less direct note, the Capra film 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington" is either not made or is different, and is not the success it was in OTL. Capra's reputation has to be made on other films. Jimmy Stewart (no know relation to Jon) has less cachet as an actor and his career goes differently. All since the filibuster is a significant part of the movie.

The lack of a filibuster affects not just Civil Rights in the 60s or Health Care and modern Presidential programmes in the 90s and 00s (see HCR under Clinton and Obama but also SS Privatization under GWB), but parts of the New Deal and the simmering controversy over States Rights and Slavery antebellum.

 

[kruscica]

As acgoldis says, the effects would not really be strongly felt until the last 20-50 years--before then, filibusters were not the same legislation killers they are today.

However, there might be a few interesting changes--wiki suggests that an attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States failed in 1841 because of the threat of a filibuster. How would a proper central bank have changed the economy of the US between 1841 and 1911?

A chartered Bank of the United States would have, I believe, exacerbated tensions antebellum, by having a stronger control of national financial resources under the control of the New York-Philadelphia Bankers, by directing financial support and investment toward the North and Old Northwest (in accordance with the Whig American Program) in opposition to the views of the South. It would also have had this effect by strengthening the Whigs, who now have some of the key parts of their Program put in effect. The more rapid rise of and linkage between the Free Soil States would have put the South in greater awareness of their distinctiveness and increasing weakness.

If the ACW doesn't occur before the mid-1850s it likely makes it a shorter conflict. It might also reduce the economic weakness of the North as they are less exposed to European financial markets, but this depends on where investment is made - if the Bank invests in Europe or even South America, then there is vulnerability.

During the Gilded Age, a United States Bank would likely be a focus of corruption and become a symbol of the theft of the national prosperity at the hands of the alliance of Politicos and Bankers and the hegemony of the Northeast even more so than the 'Robber Barons' of OTL. I actually see calls for the abolition of the BUS by a stronger force of Agrarians, Populists and Socialists, which may occur by about 1911, at which point things get fuzzy.

I also see in that case, a stronger relationship between US Political and Economic hegemony. In OTL, we had the Marine Corps as Private Army of Dole, United Fruit and ARAMCO for example. In this timeline, as the United States Government is effectively owner of the capital, then threats to US Economic interests are the same as an attack on, or resistance to, US Political and Military interests. Whether mounting and permanenet casualty lists drive a movement toward Pacifism or Isolationism and the destruction of the Military-Industrial Complex is an open question (it hasn't yet in our timeline's less expansive world), or indeed whether it brings about a dystopic inability to overthrow some tyranny cloaked in potemkin democracy.

Still and all, at the very least in brings the Republican program into effect 20 years early barring slowdowns from a South-while-it-is-in-the-Union, and a stronger Left (though as the Great Commoner found out, there's still not necessarily enough to win).

 

[Atreus]

I did a quick check -- it looks like the vast majority of the filibustering has taken place over the past 50 years or so, especially over the past 20. It almost seems like this should wind up in the After 1900 forum since there would be minimal effect earlier.

Correct. Filibusters were rare, if not unheard of, until the 50s or so, when Civil Rights Legislation began to crop up. At that point, it was adopted as a weapon by southern democrats as a way to increase their relative power and stall legislation that they viewed as problematic. From there, it mushroomed to its current state of near-perpetual usage, where often as not a majority needs to be 60 votes for anything to happen.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

As acgoldis says, the effects would not really be strongly felt until the last 20-50 years--before then, filibusters were not the same legislation killers they are today.

However, there might be a few interesting changes--wiki suggests that an attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States failed in 1841 because of the threat of a filibuster. How would a proper central bank have changed the economy of the US between 1841 and 1911?

You know how unstable the late 19th century was?

Imagine that but several times worse. The economy will still grow a great deal (first globalization and all), but it'll be more un-even.