system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Senate should require a talking filibuster to block a bill.

There was a lot of hubub this week when Sen. Manchin indicated an openness to requiring a talking filibuster supported by affirmative votes of 41 members of the Senate.

I think this would be a positive development, better than either the current status quo, or total abolition of the filibuster.

In particular, this would allow the majority to push through legislation very occasionally, but they would pay a substantial price and would not be able to do it all the time.  In particular, overcoming a talking filibuster would cost the majority time, probably a week or several weeks of the Senate being unable to do anything else, as well as the bill in question being at the center of national attention (since it would be a huge spectacle to have the Senate doing a 24h talkathon).

Realistically, this could be done once or twice a year maximum, so almost all legislation would still need supermajority support.  But if you're willing to put your chips down and spend that time on it, you should be able to pass it with a majority.

Likewise, the minority party would have more incentive to make a meaningful deal, because their position is strong enough to get concessions, but not so strong as to think they don't need to make concessions of their own.  And of course a filibuster is costly to the minority too - they have to do the talking, so they wouldn't want to whip it out unless they really cared about blocking the bill.
gpt
>better than either the current status quo, or total abolition of the filibuster.

How would that be better than total abolition? Why is it good that a minority party can paralyze the senate or even bully the majority out of a bill the country elected them to pass?