NationStates Jolt Archive


04-02-2005, 18:29
I ban a law on filibustering in parliament. I assumed that a filibuster was non-stop speaking by a minority group, restricting the flow of parliament. Surely it is correct to put a stop to this, by placing 30 minute restrictions for a legth of a speach. But after doing this my nation has been escribed as a clear case of tyranny by majority. WHY?!?!?! :eek:
04-02-2005, 18:50
Probably because a filibuster is a tool by the minority party or parties to prevent laws they don't like from getting enacted. If a bill is killed by filibuster, it may force the majority party to make concessions to the minority to get a version of that bill passed.

If you prohibit filibustering, the majority will win just about all the time. (Note I said just about all the time. If enough members of the majority party cross party lines and vote against a measure, it can still be defeated).
05-02-2005, 01:27
When I banned filibusters, my political rights decreased, and when I later allowed them, political rights rose to excellent. This issue seems to have a pretty significant effect. It's one of the few Political Rights issues, which aren't nearly as common as the Civil Rights issues.

I would view a filibuster as an impediment to democracy, but that's because my party's in power in the US Senate. Filibusters of judicial appointees are thwarting the will of the ruling party.
05-02-2005, 01:39
and get them to end the filibuster on your terms. Make it sweet enough and they'll end the debate.