Every time Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) votes to maintain the legislative filibuster, he is voting, in practical terms, with the GOP.

51st.

1 Republican politician has more power than 30 Democratic politicians.

I don't see how relegating everything in a democracy to a simple majority is representative of anything.

A supermajority at least shows that a large portion of a group thinks something is a good idea...a simple majority just shows that something is divisive.

Well:

1. It’s not in the Constitution;
2. No other democracy in the world imposes a supermajority requirement to get things done;
3. The filibuster has racist origins and was often abused that way;
4. The Senate is so malapportioned that Senators representing a supermajority of the U.S. *population* could still fail to overcome it;
5. Hyperpolarization means it’s become a vehicle for hyperpartisanship and getting absolutely nothing consequential done.

Over the past several months Democrats have tried, really tried, to gain bipartisan support for basic initiatives like Covid relief, infrastructure, voting rights, and investigating a riot that attacked Congress itself. Republican support has been tepid at best.

If we want to reform the a filibuster to allow for overcoming it with 55 votes (say), then that could potentially provide a path to bipartisan deal-making with the handful of Republican Senators who are actually willing to play ball with the majority. Or, if the tables were turned, to
provide space for moderate Democratic Senators to work with a Republican majority.

But 60, in this era, is insane — there are not 60 Senate votes for much of anything these days. As a consequence, the filibuster actually promotes *hyperpartisanship* and bloc voting rather than the opposite.

1. Neither are plenty of commonsense laws that we use to regulate society.
2. Why should we feel ashamed of doing something differently?
3. History has, does, and always will suck. However, we are not using the filibuster in such a capacity now, so why should our present actions be judged by a lense more suited to the past? I as an individual do not want to be judged the same way you'd judge my great great grandparents, or anyone in between. Judge me by my actions alone.
4. The Senate exists to represent every state equally, not by population. Population is balanced in the House, States are balanced in the Senate.
5. So fix the hyperpolarization, not the forum. If we give into such a temptation we do nothing but *foment* further polarization, which isn't a good long-term strategy for the country as a whole.

Personally, were I kingmaker, I'd have made the majority 65. The entire point of having such a bar is to ensure that nothing but legislation everyone agrees is good for the country gets through. What's wrong is not the filibuster, but the mentality that it can be abused when it works for one party and then circumvented later when that party has power. Case in point; Republicans threatened nuking the filibuster in order to make a play for a Supreme Court seat. They then defend its existence now. The Democrats have pulled similar ploys.

You want my opinion?: Pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring all legislation meet the 60-vote standard, as well as all votes required for day-to-day proceedings. Include a clause that stipulates any legislator who intentionally subverts this rule (I.E, a bloc decides not to vote to turn the lights on in the morning in order to delay proceedings) will be stripped of office by the impartial courts and their seat put up for another election.

The result, inasmuch as I've thought it through, is that you incentivise cooperation and ensure no one abuses the filibuster as happens now. Rather, it would actually function as the tool it is meant to be and ensure that only legislation that the vast majority of states consider beneficial for the country passes.