60 vote senate

UCLA political scientist Barbara Sinclair reports that in 1960's "extended-debate-related problems" - threatened or actual filibusters affected 8% of major legisaltion in the US Senate.   By 1980's that had risen to 27 %.   Following Democrats retaking cotrol of Congress in 2006, this soared to 70%.

The 60 vote rule in the senate is not in the Constitution, but a self imposed rule by the Senate.  While I am little squemish about abolishing the rule completely, the number required to close debate could be lowered to 55, or there could be rolling debate closings (as in a bill by Tom Harkin) that initally called for 60, and then a couple of days later 57, then a couple of days later 55, etc, until a simple majority was needed.   Democrats could also no longer allow the "courtesy" of not actually speaking on the floor to "continue" debate, but make the minority view actually stand and speak.

I could sympathize with filibusters if they represent truly held positions, but when used to paralyze a government of the opposite party for pure political purpose (to kick them out,) it is irresponsible use of the parliamentary device.   With a narrowly polarized nation, we won't likely see much done under any majority if this continues.   Of course, who suffers?   we the people!