Letter: Why the filibuster should stay
The Jan. 3 Vail Daily column calling for an end of the United States Senate filibuster advocates a “do unto others before they do unto you” approach. Such an approach will fuel corrosive partisanship and increase institutional dysfunction at a time when most Americans want their government to function effectively on their behalf.
The filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance legislation, forces the majority party to seek support from the minority. Ending the filibuster would expose controversial policies to the mercy of political cycles, changing policies from one extreme to another as party control shifts. And, very importantly, it would short-circuit the give-and-take process/debate that sharpens and improves our nation’s laws.
Preserving the filibuster should be, and historically has been, supported by both parties to help keep partisanship in check.
Pamla H. Moore
Vail and Washington D.C.