Senate filibuster blocks the high chamber’s ability to govern

It's hard to imagine anything more quintessentially American than democracy and the democratic process.

The notions of majority rule and "one man one vote," are ingrained in schoolchildren as early as the third grade and form an integral part of our national narrative.

It is not hard to see why many American citizens are frustrated, even angered by the current stand-off over health care reform in the United States Senate.

With both the House of Representatives and President Barack Obama ready to pass a bill, and a nine-member majority in the Senate, those in favor know the legislation should be a done deal.

Of course, as anyone who paid attention in civics class (or has watched the news over the past month or so) knows that's not the case. It takes 60 votes to get legislation out of the Senate. This fact has many people suggesting the Senate is un-American, unfair and obsolete.

House majority leader Steny Hoyer went so far as to suggest the upper house is "broken." Is that a fair assessment? The answer lays in what exactly you mean by broken.

If Hoyer is suggesting the Senate is relatively undemocratic, well, he's right. Any political scientist will openly admit the Senate is one of the least democratic institutions of the American government – and is so by design.

Our Founding Fathers believed in democracy, but they were also somewhat skeptical of the vast political masses.

Men like Alexander Hamilton were particularly afraid of the potential for "mob rule," the idea that large majorities might run roughshod over minorities, and they also were afraid the actions of such a government would swing wildly and unpredictably given the fickle nature of public opinion.

A famous conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson compared the Senate to a saucer into which one would pour scalding hot coffee to cool.

In the Senatorial saucer, the unbridled will of the people could be allowed to settle and given even-tempered consideration.

This encourages compromise, and prevents the government from taking rash action. Simply being somewhat undemocratic does not make the institution broken.

If Hoyer is suggesting the Senate is broken because it is becoming much more difficult to pass legislation there, then he may have a point.

The Founding Fathers may have had qualms with the political masses, but they were still largely majoritarians – people who believe a simple majority is enough to authorize government action.

In a few instances, they called for "supermajorities" (like amending the Constitution and impeachment), but the filibuster is not one of these.

In fact, the filibuster is never mentioned in the Constitution – as mentioned above it arises from the rules the Senate sets for itself and tradition.

The practice was not common in the early days of our nation, but it did sometimes happen.

However, quite in contrast to today, the filibuster occupied a special place in our system – it was a rare and spectacular occurrence, reserved for only the most contentious issues, used to demonstrate the extraordinary intensity of minority opposition.

Such usage is arguably consistent with the founders' vision of the Senate as a check on majoritarian exuberance.

It has only been in recent decades the filibuster has been elevated to a common political weapon.

Both parties are responsible for its rise to prominence: The tactic was used heavily by Republicans during Bill Clinton's administration, then by Democrats during former President George W. Bush's second term and has become the de-facto Republican response to President Obama.

The biggest change has been in the type of issues that are affected.

Routine appointments (such as Bush's ambassador to the United Nations and Obama's selection for the National Labor relations Board) and relatively mundane legislation has been targeted by filibuster threats.

Due to a procedural change, Senators don't even have to carry out the arduous act of actually filibustering; instead they merely need to threaten to do so and it has the same effect.

Instead of being a once in a year or even decade occurrence, dozens of filibuster threats are carried out every session.

In the 1960s, the height of tensions over Civil Rights, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters.

Since 2000, no senate term has had fewer than 49.

Some pundits have reported Republicans have threatened to filibuster 70 percent of the legislation in Senate this year.

The transformation of the filibuster from rarity to common occurrence is not a healthy development.

It has only exacerbated the many systemic factors that produce endless gridlock in Washington.

Both parties have railed against its use when they were in power and threatened to do away with the practice entirely.

We may see its death in the near future, when one party finally decides to employ the so called "nuclear option" and change the Senate rules that allow the practice.

The filibuster has some legitimate uses (in fact the current health care debate may in fact be one), but its abuse is damaging our ability to govern too much for it to be ignored.