Would changing the filibuster rule make our country more governable? That's what one of James Fallow's readers thinks could happen.
"I can't help but wonder if, with only the need for 50% in the senate, citizens civil engagement would improve. Would less chance to derail things on the margins lead to more energy into policy development? Would citizens develop a more pragmatic view of what should be done because of the increased likeliness that something's going to be done? Would this help change our political discussions from horse-races of people (examples: Can Nancy get this through the House, will Olympia provide the extra vote? Why can't Obama get his agenda through Congress?) to the details of policy because some policy is more likely to be passed?
And instead of a government that barely works, we'd have one that could be trusted to solve our problems. I think it's time to go back to requiring the person who wants filibuster to stand on the floor of the Senate and actually filibuster. It would be a more honest and obvious activity.