The only decisive voice the minority party has in the Senate is provided by the filibuster. The word “filibuster” was first used to describe “efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.” Without the filibuster option, the minority party basically has no choice but to submit to the will of the majority party. If the majority party has 60 members, the minority party can in effect become a moot entity. This is one of the built-in weaknesses of the two party system.

Several Democratic senators are conducting discussions whose intent is to reform the filibuster process and by doing so reduce the ability of Republicans to impede progress in the Senate. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who is the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee has announced that he will hold hearings on the filibuster rules saying, “Most of our Democrats are in support of seeing what can be done because the filibuster has slowed the Senate down to a crawl.”

Democratic leaders have been complaining since they became the majority that Republicans have made it difficult for the Senate to move forward with bills and nominations in a reasonable amount of time. The Democrats are frustrated because they had to file for cloture to end debate on several nominations and bills because Republicans would not agree to a timetable. There has been specific frustration from the Democrats over the lack of progress in passing Health Care Reform, but the issue that brought the subject of a filibuster rules change to a head took place when Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) was able to delay a bill to extend unemployment benefits because he objected to using deficit spending to finance it.

There are differing ideas being discussed as to what possible changes can be made in reforming the filibuster rules: 1) to reduce the number of votes required to override a filibuster from 60 to 51, 2) end the longstanding practice of allowing senators to place an anonymous “hold” on a bill, which means it cannot be considered until the unknown senator lifts his or her objections and 3) simply change the rules of the Senate when it meets in January 2011.

The consequences of such a move, comes at the risk of further dividing the Senate, especially along partisan lines. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said, “It would poison the relationship and it would damage the country. If you think about what would happen next, if they change the rules today and they lose the Congress in November, then they lose their minority rights.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said, “What Democrats are saying is we don’t agree with the Founders that the Senate ought to be different than the House, and that the rights of the minority should always be protected. The idea of the Senate being a place where we have to form consensus in order to make major changes to the country should not be put off lightly. That’s what’s best for the country. It works well.” Though the filibuster is not included in the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson took great pains to write about the importance of rules that would protect the rights of the minority party in the Senate.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) spoke with reason when he said, “This is something you don’t change just because it’s not working in your favor when you’re in the majority.” While speaking to a group of liberal bloggers, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “The filibuster has been abused. But next Congress, we are going to take a look at it. And we’re going to make some changes in it.” It is interesting that Reid is already laying out his agenda for the next Congress.

This is yet another reason to do everything possible to insure Reid’s defeat and his belligerent way of pushing his agenda through. Reid told a group of reporters the current level of obstruction in the Senate is unacceptable saying, “We are likely to have to make some changes in it, because the Republicans have abused that just like the spitball was abused in baseball and the four-corner offense was abused in basketball.”

Let us be reminded that the responsibility of those who serve in the Senate is not to carry out the Reid agenda as he seems to think, but to serve, represent and protect the people who elected them. To be sure, people on both sides of the aisle will have differing viewpoints on this debate as the filibuster serves the two parties in differing ways at differing times. For the voters, this is a critical issue as a change in the filibuster rules could place the majority party in total and complete control of the Congress.

As it now appears, the filibuster has very little chance of changing. In order to change Senate rules in the middle of the session requires 67 votes, which Democrats clearly don’t have. However, changing the rules at the beginning of the 112th Congress when the chair declares the Senate is in a new session, it can then legally draft new rules. Such a ruling would have to be made by VP Joe Biden, who has made his opposition against the current abuse of the filibuster known.

It would seem the only way to keep a lion from roaring is to shut his mouth and that is effectively what doing away with the filibuster could accomplish. While the filibuster does have its flaws, it effectively defends against the inherent flaws of the two party system.