Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
"The delay tactic of filibustering was actually an accident of history that came about in 1807," write Michael Golden and Emmet Bondurant.
Presidential outcome may portend the Senate filibuster’s finish
Golden is the author of "Unlock Congress" and a senior fellow at the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy. He is also a member of The Fulcrum's editorial advisory board. Bondurant has argued several cases before the Supreme Court and represented Common Cause in an unsuccessful 2010 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster.
Buried in the vortex of voices shouting at each other during this week's South Carolina debate were two consecutive answers in which Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg both announced support for a simple rule change that would be a game-changer for the American people: Finally putting an end to the filibuster.
For several years we've been making the legal argument that the cloture rules of the Senate, who now require 60 votes instead of a simple majority to advance legislation, are unconstitutional. Neither lawmaking nor executive branch appointments were included by the Framers in the five scenarios they laid out requiring supermajorities.
"As it stands now, if the president chooses not to debate the Democratic nominee, it is much more likely that no debates will be held, thus denying voters an opportunity to hear from the candidates," writes Shawn Griffiths.
Could the presidential debates look different this fall?
Griffiths is a contributor to Independent Voter News.
The rules that govern American elections were not set up by a neutral government board or body. They were set up by the Republican and Democratic parties — not to promote fair competition or advance choice, but to ensure a political advantage.
As former Gehl Foods CEO Katherine Gehl puts it, the political industry "is the only industry where people are told competition is bad for the consumer."
"The current primary and caucus schedule only exists because the states that hold the first contests are not willing to give up that power," argue Corinne Day and Anthony Lamorena.
Why Super Tuesday is bad for candidates and the democratic process
Day is a communications associate and Lamorena is a government affairs associate at R Street Institute, a nonpartisan and pro-free-market public policy research organization.
In the lead-up to Super Tuesday, presidential candidates are hustling across the country shaking hands, slapping backs and trying their hardest to stay in the race. For these campaigns, next week's primaries and caucuses will be a turning point. Over the years, many candidates –– Pat Robertson, Bob Kerrey, Dick Gephardt, and Ben Carson, to name a few –– have dropped out if they were unable to muster a strong enough showing on Super Tuesday.
While Super Tuesday is the end for many presidential hopefuls, the day is much more important for another reason. With 14 states holding primaries and 34 percent of Democratic delegates up for grabs, this year's best performer is the odds-on bet to become the party's nominee. However, these states do not represent the majority of the electorate and tend to be highly partisan.
"The refusal by many voters to censure Trump for his transgressions has a powerful psychological basis to it in the wish to break free of authority," argues Barry Richards.
Trump the transgressor: the psychological appeal of leaders who break rules
Richards is a professor of political psychology at Bournemouth University in Dorset, England.
Many of today's politicians appear to appeal to the basic human need for safety, presenting their versions of strong leadership as the best hope for order and safety in a fearful world of growing instability and risk. Much evidence confirms that this appeal is certainly an important factor in the political landscape.
But alongside this, other psychological dynamics are currently influential in a number of Western democracies – particularly in attracting people to support populist leaders and their agendas.