Prof. Anthony Gill writes on the American Institute for Economic Research site in defense of the Senate Filibuster.
"For those unfamiliar, a filibuster is a technique used to prevent a bill from moving to a vote on the Senate floor by calling for continued debate on the issue. For the debate to be ended, 60 Senators must vote for cloture. Arguments against the filibuster appeal to a simple majoritarian view of democracy, rejecting the notion that some issues are so important as to require supermajority support.
But is such a simple perspective on democracy warranted (or “Warren-ted”)? Might economics, or more specifically public choice theory, have something to add to this conversation which would temper calls to eliminate the filibuster?...
...Eliminating the filibuster entirely would not be wise, as it would remove an important means of adjusting voting thresholds to the proper saliency of the issue at hand. This is important for all political parties given that constituencies and policy issues change over time; while one political group may not benefit from the filibuster on a current issue, they may find it a very valuable protection in the future"
Please link here for the full article, with graphs and pancakes!