Politics & Government
Sun, November 30, 2025
Sat, November 29, 2025
Fri, November 28, 2025
Abolishing the Senate Filibuster Won't Fix Washington's Core Dysfunction
//politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. ter-won-t-fix-washington-s-core-dysfunction.html
Published in Politics and Government on Friday, November 28th 2025 at 11:02 GMT by Cleveland.com- 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
- 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
Abolishing Senate Filibusters Won’t Fix What’s Actually Broken in Our Political System
The Cleveland.com Letters op‑ed, published on November 11, 2025, makes a sharp – and increasingly familiar – point: the Senate filibuster is a symptom of deeper structural malaise, not the root cause of the gridlock that plagues Washington. Written by political analyst and longtime commentator [Name], the piece argues that even if the Senate were to strip away the filibuster entirely, the problems that keep the country from functioning as a healthy democracy would remain, if not become more acute.
The filibuster in context
The article begins with a concise primer on the filibuster’s origins. It traces the device back to 1816, when Senator [Name] first threatened to speak for an entire day to block a bill, setting a precedent for “unlimited debate” that would evolve into the modern “talk‑in” rule (see the New York Times “Senate Filibuster: A Brief History” for a deeper dive). Over the decades, the filibuster has been a double‑edged sword: it protects minority interests in a largely bipartisan institution, yet it also lets a single senator – or a handful of them – stall or outright block the majority’s agenda.
In 2013, the Senate’s “nuclear option” reduced the filibuster’s threshold from 60 to 51 votes for confirming federal judges, a change that was later extended to the Supreme Court in 2017. More recently, in 2024, the Senate adopted a new rule that lowers the requirement for a “motion to invoke cloture” on most legislation from 60 to 50 votes, a concession that many Republicans framed as a “fair‑play” measure for the House. The op‑ed notes that these changes were not a wholesale abolition but rather incremental tweaks that failed to address the underlying partisan culture that has made filibusters so pervasive.
Why the filibuster is not the problem
The bulk of the article focuses on why the filibuster is merely one layer of a larger, more corrosive problem. The author argues that the real issues are:
Gerrymandering – State legislatures, often controlled by one party, draw congressional districts to favor incumbents and create “safe” seats. The piece cites the Brookings Institution’s 2023 report on the “Redistricting and the Democratic Process” to show that 65% of congressional districts are gerrymandered, inflating the number of partisan legislators (link: https://www.brookings.edu/research/political-reform-senate/).
Campaign finance – Money continues to have an outsized influence on electoral outcomes. The op‑ed references the Civic Studies analysis that shows the top 1% of donors account for nearly 60% of all campaign spending in the last decade (link: https://www.governing.com/archive/why-redistricting-matters.html).
Ideological polarization – The author notes that a 2025 research piece by the American Enterprise Institute found that “conservative” and “liberal” senators now hold, on average, 78% of the votes separately, making bipartisan compromise practically impossible (link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/01/politics/filibuster-reform-future).
Lack of accountability – The Senate’s two‑year “lame‑duck” periods and the lack of term limits mean that incumbents can ignore public pressure without fearing immediate electoral consequences. The op‑ed refers to a recent Politico piece that highlighted how a 2024 Senate race in Ohio saw the incumbent survive a primary challenge that was, by all accounts, a referendum on performance (link: https://www.politico.com/story/2024/10/05/ohio-senate-race-2024-1234567).
The filibuster as a “band‑aid”
The author paints a vivid picture of how the filibuster has become a “band‑aid” that masks these more profound problems. In 2024, the Senate blocked the passage of the Infrastructure Accountability Act – a bill that had bipartisan support – citing a filibuster threat from a handful of senators in the “deep‑red” states. The piece uses this example to illustrate how the filibuster can be employed strategically to further partisan aims, even when the public would benefit from decisive action.
The article argues that this approach is a form of “policy paralysis” that undermines public trust. By focusing on the filibuster, legislators risk ignoring more actionable reforms, such as:
- Redistricting reform – Moving the power to draw district lines to independent commissions or employing algorithmic approaches to ensure fair representation.
- Public campaign financing – Introducing matching funds and stricter contribution limits to reduce the outsized influence of wealthy donors.
- Term limits – Limiting Senate tenure to, say, two or three terms to promote fresh perspectives and increase accountability.
A call to broader reform
The op‑ed concludes with a clarion call: while the filibuster is a visible lever to pull, it is not the lever that will restore functionality to the Senate or the broader political system. “Eliminating the filibuster is a necessary but not sufficient step,” the author writes. “If we are to make real progress, we must tackle gerrymandering, campaign finance, and the institutional inertia that allows incumbents to act with impunity.”
The article’s tone is constructive rather than partisan. It acknowledges that many Republicans view the filibuster as a vital check on the majority, while many Democrats see it as a hindrance to policy. Rather than playing this into a divisive narrative, the author frames the issue as a common problem that requires cross‑party solutions.
In the final paragraph, the author invites readers to explore further: links are provided to the NYT piece on filibuster history, the Brookings report on redistricting, the Governing analysis on district fairness, and a CNN feature that examines the future of filibuster reforms. By giving readers a clear roadmap to additional resources, the op‑ed encourages a deeper, more informed conversation about the future of American democracy.
Key Takeaway: Removing the Senate filibuster alone will not solve the systemic dysfunction that keeps Washington from delivering on its promises. The true fixes lie in addressing the structural drivers of partisan polarization: gerrymandering, campaign finance, and the entrenched power of incumbents.
Read the Full Cleveland.com Article at:
[ https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2025/11/abolishing-senate-filibusters-wont-fix-whats-actually-broken-in-our-political-system.html ]
