But the problem with the Senate is not ultimately about the relative purity of majoritarian rule. It is about accountability. By allowing the minority to obstruct the majority’s program, the filibuster severs the lines of accountability between elected representatives and the performance of the government.

In a functional democracy, representatives (and parties) should compete for electoral support and be judged by the voters on the basis of the success or failure of their policies. But, as Ezra Klein has pointed out, the arcane and convoluted cloture rules of the Senate make it possible for the minority to block the majority’s program and to benefit from the majority’s failure to enact that program. The result is that the public blames the majority for failures caused by minority obstructionism. Klein:

Small-d democrats should prefer a system in which the majority can enact its agenda and then must defend it before the voters to a system in which the majority cannot enact its agenda and must explain the complicated mechanisms behind its fecklessness to the voters.

In a system without the filibuster, the threat of repeal, as opposed to the impossibility of action, becomes the dominant player in legislative design, and it’s much to be preferred. The clear accountability of passing laws and being judged on their success is far superior to the confusing campaigns that result from promising the passage of laws and then failing to surmount a filibuster. Strengthening that crucial relationship between cause (one party got elected) and effect (they passed bills) is not only better from the perspective of assuring action on problems. It’s also a road to a better-informed citizenry that knows who to blame, and who to reward, for the condition of the country and the performance of the most recent Congress.

So can we abolish the filibuster? How? I’ll save that discussion for another post.