Why 60 votes?

[Kranar]

I was a bit stumped today when asked why it is that the U.S. Senate requires 60 votes to get some bills passed. It seems like sometimes only 51 votes are needed, but other times 60 votes are needed, and to override a Presidential veto, 67 are needed.

I tried Googling/Wiki'ing the answer but didn't get any info on the issue. The only thing I could think of is that some of the more important bills need 60 votes? I know that doesn't make much sense but I'm stumped.

Democrats keep saying they need 60 votes to end the war in Iraq (reducing spending etc...) but I don't see why they couldn't just cut funding with 51 votes.

[Skeeter]

3/5 majority

[Warriorbird]

I believe it is 3/5ths on bills that involve money?

[Kranar]

Any references or explanation why this is?

[Atlanteax]

to avoid issues that result from resolution being passed by very slim majorities

[Sean of the Thread]

Something to do about cloture and filibusters if I remember correctly.

It's been a good 7 years since AMGOV.

[Gan]

Senate three-fifths rule:




"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php

[chillmonster]

You need 60 votes to end a filibuster and begin voting on an issue. If Democrats wanted to pass ligislation requireing the President to implement milestones for starting to withdraw troops from Iraq, Republicans could just filibuster and prevent a vote from ever happening.

Even if they passed it, however, the President could just veto the bill which requires 67 votes in the senate and 290 in the house to overturn. So passing that would only force both sides to compromise in order to get any funding for the war all instead of maintaining the status quo where the administration can do whatever they wants.

[TheEschaton]

You should read the rules on Cloture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture). Basically, to vote on a bill (which requires only a 51 vote majority), you require cloture, otherwise there is a possibility of fillibuster.

A fillibuster is basically one side continuing to talk and debate endlessly so as to prevent a vote - usually until cloture is obtained or the other side just drops it. Strom Thurmond famously fillibustered Civil Rights by reading the dictionary entry for entry.

Cloture brings a fillibuster to an end. Otherwise, the minority can just talk a bill out.

[TheEschaton]

But forcing the President to veto a bill like that, is, in many ways, a far more substantial victory than not even being able to pass the Bill.

[Drew]

I've always thought that cloture should require 2/3rds of votes instead of the current 3/5ths. That said, the Senator(s) filibustering should be required to speak the entire time the Senate is in session instead of the current "Hai guyz I'm filibustering!"

[TheEschaton]

It used to be 2/3rd, but it was deemed an insanely high barrier to merely closing debate.

[Jesuit]

You need 60 votes to end a filibuster and begin voting on an issue. If Democrats wanted to pass ligislation requireing the President to implement milestones for starting to withdraw troops from Iraq, Republicans could just filibuster and prevent a vote from ever happening.

Even if they passed it, however, the President could just veto the bill which requires 67 votes in the senate and 290 in the house to overturn. So passing that would only force both sides to compromise in order to get any funding for the war all instead of maintaining the status quo where the administration can do whatever they wants.

I know this is off topic but I just have to ask, is English your second language chillmonster?

[chillmonster]

I know this is off topic but I just have to ask, is English your second language chillmonster?

Yeah. Horrible. Two spelling errors and some runons...I'm ashamed.:oops:

[chillmonster]

Maybe I should start giving enough of a fuck to thoroughly revise this shit...

[Jesuit]

Maybe I should start giving enough of a fuck to thoroughly revise this shit...

It's funny you call it shit, that's exactly the word I would use to describe all of your posts.

[chillmonster]

It's funny you call it shit, that's exactly the word I would use to describe all of your posts.

Now I have to ask. Are you ParkBandit?

[Drew]

It used to be 2/3rd, but it was deemed an insanely high barrier to merely closing debate.


Not quite, the Democrats changed it when they had 61 Senators so that they could pass anything they wanted. Politics as always.

[Parkbandit]

Now I have to ask. Are you ParkBandit?

OMG NOW CHILLMONSTER DOESN'T RESPECT JESUIT AND Parkbandit!

[chillmonster]

OMG NOW CHILLMONSTER DOESN'T RESPECT JESUIT AND Parkbandit!

Since I've never seen anything but cliche and personal attacks from either of you (if you are actually two different people) I really have no reason to respect you.

[Parkbandit]

Since I've never seen anything but cliche and personal attacks from either of you (if you are actually two different people) I really have no reason to respect you.


Since I've never seen anything but cliche and personal attacks from either of you (you and Backlash.. if you are actually two different people) I really have no reason to respect you.


C WHUT I DID THER!

[Hulkein]

Filibusters are hysterical.

[chillmonster]

Since I've never seen anything but cliche and personal attacks from either of you (you and Backlash.. if you are actually two different people) I really have no reason to respect you.


C WHUT I DID THER!

Yeah. You came to the table with the same thing you always do.