Hi!
I noticed the following comment in the Future History thread:
-----
Originally Posted by Pkmatrix
Before 1975 you needed two-thirds of the Senators voting for Cloture to break a filibuster. So, for example, if 70 Senators were present and 47 voted for Cloture, the filibuster was broken.
In 1975 they changed the rules so you needed three-fifths of all 100 Senators, so of those 70 voting Senators you needed 60 to break the filibuster. This makes filibustering much more effective and MUCH harder to break, thus creating the opportunity for the abuses we've seen more recently.
-----
How would the events of the last forty years have developed if no filibuster reform had taken place?
I noticed the following comment in the Future History thread:
-----
Originally Posted by Pkmatrix
Before 1975 you needed two-thirds of the Senators voting for Cloture to break a filibuster. So, for example, if 70 Senators were present and 47 voted for Cloture, the filibuster was broken.
In 1975 they changed the rules so you needed three-fifths of all 100 Senators, so of those 70 voting Senators you needed 60 to break the filibuster. This makes filibustering much more effective and MUCH harder to break, thus creating the opportunity for the abuses we've seen more recently.
-----
How would the events of the last forty years have developed if no filibuster reform had taken place?