Imagine a bill, any bill, being prevented from obtaining a majority vote because of a single lawmaker never stopped debating against it. It is difficult to imagine a functioning government if a single lawmaker could object to it and keep debating against bringing it to fruition. But that is how politics work in the US Senate. The first thing one needs to understand the filibuster is that it did not originate from the US Constitution. So, if the US Constitution did not create one of the biggest legislative hurdles in US politics, then what did? Well, the filibuster was created on accident. According to Ezra Klein's "7 Myths About The Filibuster" article on Vox (https://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster) Vice President Aaron Burr delivered a farewell address in 1805. Burr praised the US Senate as a proponent and executor of law & order--but with a fatal flaw. Aaron Burr criticized the US Senate for allowing any senator to propose a vote that would cease any and all debates. In other words, if a senator does not stop debating, another senator CANNOT propose a vote to stop the senator. The US Senate agreed, and the filibuster was created. Fast-forward thirty-five years later, the Whigs Party takes control of the Senate in 1841, and decide to change the printing firms that would that Congress would charge with producing the Congressional Globe, an encyclopedia that lists all the rules of US Congress. The Democrats filibustered the rule, and debating raged for six days. The rest is history. One little fun fact, I might as well mention is the record for the longest filibuster by a single senator belongs to Senator Strom Thurmond, who debated against the passing of the US Civil Rights Act of 1957 for a grand total of 24 hours and 18 minutes. In that time, he read allowed the election statutes of all then-48 states, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, George Washington's farewell address, and other documents. Furthermore, he ate cold sirloin steak and pumpernickel bread, as well as sucking on throat lozenges to keep his throat from drying. Without a filibuster, the US Senate would have been able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and guarantee African-Americans the basic right to vote much quicker, rather than waiting for a single senator to stop debating. Just imagine of multiple Strom Thurmonds attempted the same tactic. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 would have taken long enough for people to feel discouraged from voting in favor of the document and move on to other bills. One of the proponents of the filibuster argue that filibusters have always been common over the course of United States history. But, in the same article by Ezra Klein, filibusters have been employed more frequently in recent history than other time periods. Citing cloture motions, Klein points out that senators' cloture votes, votes to end a filibuster, were only counted 60 times between 1917 and 1970 as opposed to 500 times between 2009 and 2015. Employing a filibuster hampers the United States federal government's ability to make progress and make laws come to pass. It has become a tactic by lawmakers to hamper the opposing political party to prevent their agendas from succeeding, so they could paint them as lazy politicians that do not get any work done. If the Democrats want to maintain control of Congress in the mid-term elections, they need to nix the filibuster if they desire to employ bills that guarantee voting rights and fair elections, as well as universal income and healthcare. CITATIONS: Chang, Alvin. “How the Filibuster Broke the US Senate.” Vox, 17 June 2019, www.vox.com/videos/2019/6/17/18681798/filibuster-senate-broke-video. Klein, Ezra. “7 Myths about the Filibuster.” Vox, 28 May 2015, www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster. ---. “Joe Biden, the 2020 Election, and the Case for Ending the Filibuster.” Vox, 1 Oct. 2020, www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump.

**Tl;dr: The filibuster has found an enemy in the U.S. Democratic Party. Despite the increasing partisanship around the issue, the procedure itself does not necessarily favor either party in the Senate. On the contrary, the filibuster represents an important procedural pillar for a stable and fair U.S. Senate. It ensures reasonable legislation, protects people’s voices, and encourages bipartisanship. For these reasons, the U.S. Senate should keep the filibuster. ** The filibuster prevents extreme policies from both parties. The progressive wing of the Democratic party sees filibuster as the essential hindrance of their agenda. Without the procedure, the Democratic Senate can take up issues such as gun control and climate policies. However, the threat of the filibuster can go both ways. The filibuster has also prevented some extreme conservative priorities, such as significant restrictions on abortions and estate tax cuts. [1] On the other hand, the example of judicial nominees should serve as a warning for filibuster critics. After efforts from both parties, judicial nominees became one of the few exceptions to the filibuster rule. As a result, the Trump Administration installed an unusual number of judges into the federal court system. Nearly a quarter of current judges come from the Trump Administration. Compared to nominees from previous presidents, the Trump nominees were more white, more male, and less qualified. [3,4] Therefore, the filibuster prevents extreme and partisan legislation. The filibuster can become a tool for the voice of the population majority. Despite the new Democratic control, the Republican Party still maintains a structural advantage in the Senate. [5] Republicans will see better prospects of capturing the control in the foreseeable future. The filibuster may become a tool for the Democratic Party. Since the Democratic Party has become the typical winner of the popular vote and the representation of the population majority, the filibuster can hinder the minority-supported Republican Senate control. Therefore, the filibuster may ensure a voice for the population majority. The filibuster can strengthen bipartisanship cooperation. The filibuster forces any successful legislation to have bipartisan appeal. It gives the minority party and even individual senators the power to influence policy decisions. The need for bipartisanship forces the two parties to cooperate on important issues. [6,7] In the era of hyper-polarization, such cooperation can become valuable. The filibuster procedure ensures stable policymaking, promotes different voices and encourages cross-party cooperation. For these reasons, the U.S. Senate should keep the filibuster. [1]. Tausanovitch, Alex, and Sam Berger. 2019. "The Impact Of The Filibuster On Federal Policymaking". Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/12/05/478199/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/. [2]. Thiessen, Marc. 2021. "Opinion: Democrats Have Vigorously Used The Filibuster. It’S Pathetic They Now Won’T Pledge To Protect It". The Washington Post, , 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/democrats-have-vigorously-used-filibuster-its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/. [3]. Gramlich, John. 2021. "How Trump Compares With Other Recent Presidents In Appointing Federal Judges". Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/. [4]. Gregory, Patrick. 2018. "Trump Picks More ‘Not Qualified’ Judges (1)". Bloomberg Law, , 2018. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-picks-more-not-qualified-judges-1. [5]. Drutman, Lee. 2020. "The Senate Has Always Favored Smaller States. It Just Didn’T Help Republicans Until Now.". FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senate-has-always-favored-smaller-states-it-just-didnt-help-republicans-until-now/. [6]. Huder, Josh. 2015. "Obama Wants Filibuster Reform. Would It Help Polarization". Blog. The Government Affairs Institute At Georgetown University. https://gai.georgetown.edu/obama-wants-filibuster-reform-would-it-help-polarization/. [7]. Kasich, John. 2020. "As Goes The Filibuster, So Goes Cooperation In Congress". The Hill, , 2020. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/517474-as-goes-the-filibuster-so-goes-cooperation-in-congress?rl=1.