Therefore, some Senators could take advantage of this rule and make long speeches that delayed some serious debates. The 1975 ruling also required a three-fifth vote rather than two-thirds votes that were required by previous legislation (Watts, 6-13).
With the tendency of American politics to have divided views, it will be very hard for any party to get 60 votes that can end a debate. For this reason, debates will not be ended easily using filibuster tactics since the 60 votes is almost unachievable on matters that are not very demanding. The cloture rule of 1975 and other amendments later gave the minority party powerful tools to block actions. One Senator could take advantage of the filibusters to kill very important bills with long speeches. The delaying tactics can be utilized by the opposition party in its attempts to destroy the bills proposed by the ruling party. On the other hand, filibusters can be utilized by the ruling party to kill any attempts by the opposition party to make legislations.
As much as filibuster has been criticized, the idea of unlimited debates in the Senate is not very bad. The debates give the minority party power to make contributions to the Senate. However, the minority party could only benefit from the cloture rule if it had at least 41 seats. It must be commanding significant portion of the country to have such number of seats. The filibusters can force the government to be considerate of its actions by reducing radical actions taken by the government. The filibusters are also important because Senators are sensible and know when and how to use the filibusters. For instance, budget bills cannot be compromised by filibusters. The Senate does not use delaying tactics when passing legislation regarding budget. Contrary to this, filibusters may be used to eliminate non-budgetary items that might be attached to the budgetary bills (Wawro and Eric, 12).
Procedural filibusters are advantageous to the Senate since