
The romantic in me loves the filibuster. One senator showing the resolve to stand up for his (or her) beliefs and argue his cause. Every one can have his voice heard. And then the process continues, either the lone senator has rallied support, or he hasn't.
But, alas! That's only how the process works in my head. Nowadays the filibuster has been twisted into a stall tactic used to block even the most banal of bills. Either the minority has its way or no legislation makes it to an outright vote. Though such tactics have led most observers to agree that some sort of reform is needed, no one is saying that the Senate should get rid of the filibuster in its entirety.
In 1975, a similar point was reached. The senate majority invoked a 1957 decision by then Vice President Nixon and led a powerful compromise that took the constitutional (aka: "nuclear") option off the table in exchange for lowering the threshhold of votes needed to pass cloture from two-thirds (67 of 100) to the current three-fifths supermajority (60 of 100), excluding special cases such as with international treaties. Simple, right? After the change, another fifteen years of relatively civil discourse prevailed until the early nineties when the filibuster came back into vogue.