August1991 Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 In Canada, we have minority governments and MPs crossing floors. Parliamentary votes that defeat a government. In the US, you have filibusters. WTF? If I understand correctly, the federal House of Representatives has passed an act. This act must also pass the federal Senate. Quote
User Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 Well, big picture, we have a system of government designed as checks and balances on each other: Legislative - Writes the laws Executive - Executes the laws Judicial - Interprets the law What we call Congress comprises the legislative branch. It was originally designed to represent the states (senators) and people (house representatives). This changed to senators also being elected by the people, but still allocated based on states, 2 each. This was meant to empower the federal system, in which both the people and the states had representation. So, for something to pass, it must pass both the Senate and the House. Each chamber makes their own rules based on majority vote or how they operate... and the Senate created a loophole back in the early days that kind of allowed for unlimited debate, which was taken advantage of to filibuster by people holding the floor. The filibuster historically was a stalling tactic, it was that a member could hold the floor for as long as they could hold the floor to stop progress. It was agreed to change the rules to a "cloture" to stop debate, which basically meant that you needed 60 out of 100 to do so. Today, it is not as much a filibuster in the traditional sense it is simply that those 41 Senators of the minority party can oppose cloture and not advance any legislation. It stops a simple majority. It is like MAD now, mutally assured destruction, with nuclear weapons, because both parties know the Senate flip flops back and forth every few years and neither party wants to stop cloture because then they have no leverage when they are out of power. So the argument lately seems to be a push to say the other party is going to do it anyway when they get power, so lets do it first! 1 Quote
August1991 Posted March 13 Author Report Posted March 13 5 minutes ago, User said: ... The filibuster historically was a stalling tactic, it was that a member could hold the floor for as long as they could hold the floor to stop progress. .... User, In the future, be more concise. ===== Can any knowledgeable American explain this to me? In particular, Trump's threat? Quote
robosmith Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 33 minutes ago, August1991 said: User, In the future, be more concise. ===== Can any knowledgeable American explain this to me? In particular, Trump's threat? Trump is threatening to stop all bills until his Voter Suppression bill is passed. Probably with a never ending speech called the filibuster. Quote
August1991 Posted March 13 Author Report Posted March 13 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Trump is threatening to stop all bills until his Voter Suppression bill is passed. Probably with a never ending speech called the filibuster. Robosmith, you hate Trump. But you did not answer my question. Are you real? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 Trump's threat was to withhold his MAGA endorsements for key Senate candidate(s) for the mid-term elections if the SAVE Act was not passed by the Senate (already passed in the House) after defeating a presumed opposition Democrat filibuster, which could go on for days. Trump can also veto or delay signature of passed legislation. Since Sen John Cornyn (R- Texas) needs Trumps help for the mid-terms, he is willing to change the filibuster rules in the Senate to put the Republicans in the best position to win mid-term elections by fighting election fraud, verify citizenship, etc. (SAVE Act). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
gatomontes99 Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 7 hours ago, August1991 said: User, In the future, be more concise. ===== Can any knowledgeable American explain this to me? In particular, Trump's threat? User was dead on. If you can't read a few paragraphs, that is on you. 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
John Stone Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 9 hours ago, User said: Well, big picture, we have a system of government designed as checks and balances on each other: Legislative - Writes the laws Executive - Executes the laws Judicial - Interprets the law What we call Congress comprises the legislative branch. It was originally designed to represent the states (senators) and people (house representatives). This changed to senators also being elected by the people, but still allocated based on states, 2 each. This was meant to empower the federal system, in which both the people and the states had representation. So, for something to pass, it must pass both the Senate and the House. Each chamber makes their own rules based on majority vote or how they operate... and the Senate created a loophole back in the early days that kind of allowed for unlimited debate, which was taken advantage of to filibuster by people holding the floor. The filibuster historically was a stalling tactic, it was that a member could hold the floor for as long as they could hold the floor to stop progress. It was agreed to change the rules to a "cloture" to stop debate, which basically meant that you needed 60 out of 100 to do so. Today, it is not as much a filibuster in the traditional sense it is simply that those 41 Senators of the minority party can oppose cloture and not advance any legislation. It stops a simple majority. It is like MAD now, mutally assured destruction, with nuclear weapons, because both parties know the Senate flip flops back and forth every few years and neither party wants to stop cloture because then they have no leverage when they are out of power. So the argument lately seems to be a push to say the other party is going to do it anyway when they get power, so lets do it first! Surprised u didn't mention the so-called, 'nuclear option' allowing Cloture to be evoked based on a simple majority vote. 1 Quote
User Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 10 hours ago, August1991 said: User, In the future, be more concise. ===== Can any knowledgeable American explain this to me? In particular, Trump's threat? In the future, a simple Thank you will suffice. ==== You are welcome. Quote
User Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 1 hour ago, John Stone said: Surprised u didn't mention the so-called, 'nuclear option' allowing Cloture to be evoked based on a simple majority vote. I kind of did! Quote
robosmith Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 10 hours ago, August1991 said: Robosmith, you hate Trump. Irrelevant. What is there to like about a man who continually violates the rules and LAWS? Maybe you don't like democracy either, and believe men should violate the law to grab political power like Hitler did. 10 hours ago, August1991 said: But you did not answer my question. What don't you understand about "a never ending speech" which grinds the Senate to a halt? 10 hours ago, August1991 said: Are you real? Are you? You seem like an enigma because you don't understand simple explanations. 10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Trump's threat was to withhold his MAGA endorsements for key Senate candidate(s) for the mid-term elections if the SAVE Act was not passed by the Senate (already passed in the House) after defeating a presumed opposition Democrat filibuster, which could go on for days. Trump can also veto or delay signature of passed legislation. Since Sen John Cornyn (R- Texas) needs Trumps help for the mid-terms, he is willing to change the filibuster rules in the Senate to put the Republicans in the best position to win mid-term elections by fighting election fraud, verify citizenship, etc. (SAVE Act). One Senator cannot "change the filibuster." Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 3 hours ago, robosmith said: One Senator cannot "change the filibuster." Yes he/she can...as one vote may win the day. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
robosmith Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Yes he/she can...as one vote may win the day. Nope. Needs at least 50 other Senators ALSO. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: Nope. Needs at least 50 other Senators ALSO. Each senator has ONE vote. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
robosmith Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Each senator has ONE vote. 51 votes required = 61 Senators required Quote
August1991 Posted March 14 Author Report Posted March 14 On 3/13/2026 at 3:01 AM, bush_cheney2004 said: Trump's threat was to withhold his MAGA endorsements for key Senate candidate(s) for the mid-term elections if the SAVE Act was not passed by the Senate (already passed in the House) after defeating a presumed opposition Democrat filibuster, which could go on for days. Trump can also veto or delay signature of passed legislation. Since Sen John Cornyn (R- Texas) needs Trumps help for the mid-terms, he is willing to change the filibuster rules in the Senate to put the Republicans in the best position to win mid-term elections by fighting election fraud, verify citizenship, etc. (SAVE Act). "... go on for days... " Explain. I'm Canadian. Quote
August1991 Posted March 14 Author Report Posted March 14 On 3/13/2026 at 4:40 PM, bush_cheney2004 said: Each senator has ONE vote. But it seems to me that the US Senate (100 members) requires 60 votes to pass a resolution. Once again: Please explain to a Canadian. Quote
User Posted March 14 Report Posted March 14 16 minutes ago, August1991 said: But it seems to me that the US Senate (100 members) requires 60 votes to pass a resolution. Once again: Please explain to a Canadian. It was explained to you. You could have read it in the time it took you to post this. Quote
August1991 Posted March 16 Author Report Posted March 16 On 3/14/2026 at 7:16 PM, User said: It was explained to you. You could have read it in the time it took you to post this. User, your answer confused me. It did not answer my question. Why does a filibuster require 60 votes? To oppose the bill, must the Democrats in the Senate speak for days? (Like Jimmy Stewart.... ) Quote
User Posted March 16 Report Posted March 16 7 minutes ago, August1991 said: User, your answer confused me. It did not answer my question. Why does a filibuster require 60 votes? To oppose the bill, must the Democrats in the Senate speak for days? (Like Jimmy Stewart.... ) A filibuster doesn't require 60 votes, your question is ignorant and if you read my post you would know why Quote
August1991 Posted March 16 Author Report Posted March 16 In Canada, at present, we have a federal parliament with 343 seats. To me, a Canadian, a majority means more seats. In 2024, our current federal Liberal Party only won 169 seats. Do the numbers. Quote
August1991 Posted March 16 Author Report Posted March 16 On 3/13/2026 at 12:45 AM, User said: ==== Today, it is not as much a filibuster in the traditional sense it is simply that those 41 Senators of the minority party can oppose cloture and not advance any legislation. It stops a simple majority. It is like MAD now, mutally assured destruction, with nuclear weapons, because both parties know the Senate flip flops back and forth every few years and neither party wants to stop cloture because then they have no leverage when they are out of power. So the argument lately seems to be a push to say the other party is going to do it anyway when they get power, so lets do it first! === Fair enough. Explain to this Canadian. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 17 Report Posted March 17 (edited) On 3/14/2026 at 5:59 PM, August1991 said: But it seems to me that the US Senate (100 members) requires 60 votes to pass a resolution. Once again: Please explain to a Canadian. There are several voting protocols in the U.S. Senate (not House) to pass or defeat bills, resolutions, motions, cloture, filibusters, judge nominations, etc. Some only require a simple majority, some require more (a super majority of 60 votes). If you think the Senate has arcane rules that are stuck in the past (Rules of the Senate), you are right: Quote In the House of Representatives, legislation passes with a simple majority of 218 of 435 votes recorded on an electronic voting system. The Senate system is, by comparison, stuck in the dark ages. In the Senate, the clerk calls the names of each Senator and records the votes on a tally sheet. Like the House, only a simple majority is required to pass legislation, but before a vote on final passage can even take place, a vote of three-fifths of the Senate (60 of 100) is required to invoke cloture and end debate. Without 60 votes to invoke cloture, any Senator can block or delay action on legislation by filibustering – debating at length, offering numerous procedural motions, or even reading bedtime stories. This means that, in practice, 60 votes are needed to move forward in the Senate. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2021/01/25/senate-voting-rules-and-budget-reconciliation-explained/ Edited March 17 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.