On the topic of filibustering only…
[quote] Canada Legislators End Filibuster Over Charter
SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: April 9, 1981
An agreement among the three parties in the House of Commons today ended nearly two weeks of filibustering against Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s proposals for a new Canadian constitution.
Mr. Trudeau and his Liberal Party majority agreed to wait until April 21 for a vote on amendments to the proposals and then to hold off a final vote until the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the Prime Minister’s move. Mr. Trudeau has asked Britain, without overall provincial consent, to add a bill of rights to the British North America Act of 1867, which serves as Canada’s constitution, and then to hand over the document to Canada. [/quote]
[quote] Canada filibuster of anti-gay marriage bill
In order for the bill to be debated again, the provincial legislature would have to sit again before the Autumn, which it is not scheduled to do
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
New Democrats launch filibuster over softwood lumber deal
Published: Tuesday, November 07, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - A bit of old-fashioned political theatre is being played out in Ottawa today over the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement.
The NDP has introduced nearly 100 proposed changes to Bill C-24 - the legislation that will bring into force the softwood lumber deal with the United States.
B.C. New Democrat Peter Julian is vowing to debate the amendments around the clock if necessary.
And so far, he has been talking almost non-stop, using an Oxford dictionary to debate words such as “the” and “any.” [/quote]
[quote]Filibuster Action Center
About the Filibuster and the “Nuclear Option”
What is the Filibuster?
The filibuster is one of our democracy’s oldest and most important checks on the power of the majority. It preserves two of our bedrock values: protecting the rights of the minority and promoting compromise.
It works like this: If at least 41 senators strongly oppose a bill or nominee, they can vote to continue debate and block a final vote on the issue. A final vote can only be taken if and when the majority wins 60 senators’ votes.
In the context of a Supreme Court battle, the filibuster means that 60 Senate votes may be needed to confirm out of the mainstream judicial nominees rather than a simple majority of 51. For two centuries, our leaders have supported the tradition of the filibuster in order to promote cooperation and compromise, and because they have recognized the dangers of one party control and the importance of protecting the rights of the minority.
Proponents of the “nuclear option” to break Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations continue to repeat the false argument that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on every judicial nomination.
[color=red]This argument is utterly refuted by more than 200 years of Senate history, during which literally thousands of judicial and executive branch nominees have been blocked in the Senate by filibusters, delays, and other tactics.[/color]
What is the “Nuclear Option”?
As the name suggests, the “nuclear option” is a radical tactic that would prohibit senators from using filibusters against extremist judicial nominees. Right-wing senators and leaders are supporting this destructive action because they want to guarantee the Senate confirmation of far-right ideologues to our federal courts, especially the Supreme Court.[/quote]
As you can see CC, the absence of an ability for minority parties to filibuster is not an obviously more democratic ideal as you seem to suggest. You are entitled to that opinion, but you must admit that the point is debatable. There are groups dedicated to preserving the filibuster loopholes in America. So please don’t attempt to degrade my position by ridiculing it. I am certainly not alone in an open-minded attitude toward filibustering.
The very existance of filibustering in several democracies, both presidential and parliamentary, tends to support the suggestion that filibustering is indeed an important aspect of a democracy that respects minority rights.
Perhaps the world wouldn’t have suffered Hitler’s rise to power had German parliamentarians been able to filibuster better. Would you also agree that Taiwan’s legislatue should approve a hypothetical pan-blue bill to end elections altogether, choose a new president-for-life based upon current poll support levels? Of course not. So here is your slippery slope: without filibuster, society is at risk should a tyrannical political party gain 51% of the legislature.
Also, you are doubtlessly aware that under “first past the post” (FPTP) voting systems based on single member constituencies, a party can command a large majority on the house floor while holding far less support proportionally. Certainly, if you were to support the outlawing of filibusters on the grounds of democratic philosophy, you must also attach to that position a necessity to use proportional representation system, no?
Check out this chart: