Will the January 2013 filibuster reforms end the tyranny of the minority in the Senate?

This well known measure to slow down or block legislation has been in the news recently. Senate party leaders have agreed to minor changes which limit the opportunities for senators to filibuster. However, senators STILL have some remaining opportunities for the filibuster, hence why it is being seen as a very modest reform.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/senate-keeps-its-filibuster-tactics-with-bipartisan-rules-change.html



The significance of the filibuster is that it allows a minority of senators to block the democratic will of the majority. It might be argued that it effectively gives some senators a veto on legislation. Other critics of the filibuster point to the fact that sometimes senators representing a tiny proportion of Americans can block legilsation (2 Senators per state no matter how big or small).

To prevent a filibuster takes 60 votes, therefore if the party balance in the 100 seat Senate is 59-41, the 41 party (as it were) could potentially block all legislation. In reality of course, the minority will not block all legislation necessarily, but can use the threat of such action to influence deals done over Bills, and force changes. This is the modern functioning of the filibuster. One rarely sees 24 hour speeches on the floor of the Senate any more. The threat of the filibuster is usually enough for the majority party to seek negotiations and compromises, rather than forcing anyone to actually speak for a long time in the chamber, which is seen as a waste of time.

Where the margins are very slim, as described in the aforementioned example, Senators from the minority can sometimes be persuaded to vote for a cloture motion against their own party, if a bargain can be struck, but this will still mean the majority will have to make concessions to a minority. Increasing partisanship with the Senate has seen an increase in use of the filibuster since the election of Obama, as Republicans have tried to block as much of his policy agenda as possible. For a short while in 2009-2010 the margins were 59-41 in favour of the democrats, which made the chances of Obama getting his healthcare reforms through particularly nerve-racking. Could a deal be done with one Republican senator to peel them away from their party on this issue and force a successful cloture motion against an otherwise implacable republican minority? The answer was no, and the 2010 mid-terms saw a reduction of the Democrat majority in the Senate forcing a much bigger compromise from the Democrats over health care reform.

So what is the significance of the 2013 reforms? They reduce the opportunities for filibuster without getting rid of it all together. This may mean a slightly speeded up average time for the passing of Bills through the Senate. This remains to be seen.