Filibuster farewell

Why a change of rules in the US Senate is good news

The Constitution of the United States of America was written for a very different time, and some of its provisions, and the traditions that grew up around its practice, are singularly unfit for a more modern and partisan era. Many of those problematic clauses and customs relate to the role of the US Senate, a body of 100 lawmakers, two from each of the US' 50 states, which was designed as a more deliberative location for legislative discussion than the noisier House of Representatives. The Senate, to top off its flagrant geographical unfairness - it gives the same power to those representing tens of millions from California and hundreds of thousands from North Dakota - has also become a choke point for legislation and for governance in the US system. One favoured method was the threat of the "filibuster" - in which one or more Senators could indefinitely postpone legislation by extending a debate on that issue.

Last week, the Democratic majority in the US Senate exercised what has long been called the "nuclear option". In 2005, the Republicans, then in the majority in the Senate, were tired of being constantly baulked in their quest to confirm the judicial and executive appointments of then president George W Bush. They threatened to close the loophole that permitted the filibuster, by which any Senator could essentially pretend to continue debating a subject until he was overruled by 60 per cent of the chamber. This threat, to reduce the operation of the Senate from requiring 60 per cent majorities to a simple majority of 50 per cent, was considered radical, and hence the "nuclear option". It didn't happen then, but the idea stuck around, and now has been used by the Democratic majority in the Senate in order to make it easier for a Democratic president to appoint judges and executive officers.

This is, broadly, welcome news. The partisan gridlock in Washington, DC, threatened more than just the US. It meant that the US executive was paralysed and inward-focused. It also gave an effective veto over all sorts of issues to 40 per cent of the Senate - 40 Senators representing only a third of the US population, and frequently the third with the most nativist opinions over matters like trade and immigration. True, concerns have been expressed that the US Senate, once the home to close co-operation across party lines, will become a more partisan place. But the truth is that the nuclear option was exercised because it was already too partisan a place. Further steps, however, to increase the effectiveness of the US system are overdue. The filibuster should be ended not just for appointments but also for legislation. And the House of Representatives, where partisanship and bitter division have reached new levels of late, should also be the focus of those wishing to reform the system. The system of "gerrymandering", by which constituencies are created for Congressmen that are stacked in favour of one party or another, is a major source of the unwillingness to search for compromise and moderation. That, too, should be discussed and eventually tackled. It may seem tough to change. But, after all, the filibuster has also existed for most of the US' history before being partially dismantled last week.