The filibuster is not as strong a weapon as it used to be because of?

Answer 1

New senate rules.

Actually, it's stronger now than ever.

Historically, the filibuster was used as a temporary measure to block a bill's passage, by hijacking the debate on the bill for a fixed amount of time. In the 1800s, the method was that a Senator (or series of Senators) wishing to mount a filibuster would have to gain recognition from the presiding member (i.e the "chair"), and then begin to speak. They could speak on any subject they wished, though, traditionally, it was supposed to be on the evils of the bill being considered. That person could hold the floor for as long as they could continue to speak. They could also recognize questions from others in the Senate, who could ask extremely complicated questions of extreme length. By this method, no other Senate business could continue, as the filibustering Senators held the floor for discussions. The limit was that Senators had to be physically present and continue the string of speeches. As soon as the last speaking senator ended, the Chair could call to close the discussion. Thus, filibusters were only able to last a few days at the most, and ALL Senate business halted during the filibuster. A filibuster was breakable by a 2/3rds vote of those PRESENT (not total Senate membership), if the Chair so desired to call for the closure.

In the early 1900s, the rules were changed so that continuous, round-the-clock speeches were not required. Instead, the Senate could adjurn for the day, and pick up the next day with the same speaker holding the floor. Otherwise, everything was the same. So, once again, a filibuster meant that ALL Senate business could be halted, now for potentially several weeks or more.

Sometime after WW2, the Senate rules again changed. Now, the filibustering senator merely had to indicate that they wanted to filibuster, and the Chair had to recognize that filibuster was being done. There was no longer any need to actually speak (or, even be continually present). In addition, filibusters could now be directed against specific bills WHILE OTHER SENATE BUSINESS CONTINUED. Even worse, closure was changed to be 60 votes of the entire Senate, not just 2/3rd of those present. This was a huge change - it effectively meant that the filibuster was now trivial to use, and had no cost. It could be of unlimited duration, for so long as 60 votes were not able to be mustered for a "closure" of discussion, the filibuster was unbreakable (as there was no effort required) and would never end.

Tradition kept the filibuster from being too abused, until the partisan 2000s showed up. Now, it has become a very potent tool for the minority party (in particular, but not exclusively, the Republican Party) to block legislation indefinitely. It effectively means that all bills now require a 60-vote margin to pass in the Senate, rather than a normal 51-vote simple majority.

There has been some serious discussion that the rules need to change to reflect this problem of too-easy filibusters. However, the only way to change these rules is at the BEGINNING of a Senate session.

Answer 2

The two-track procedural system

Answer 3

new senate rules