What are your thoughts on the Senate’s legislative filibuster requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation?

It should remain in place (72%) – "I work in education policy and have orchestrated several state pieces of legislation in multiple states. Each bill has taken at least three years to pass and we intentionally design it for bi-partisan support. That is the only way to craft solid policy that is designed to benefit its intended purpose. So many times I have seen partisan bills rammed through and they experience resistance during the implementation process or are repealed the next chance that comes about. All of this is a waste of taxpayer funding and causes constant disruption and confusion for the public."

• "The filibuster is a practice that at first glance seems ridiculous, but on closer examination proves valuable because it requires lawmakers to cross party lines and work together for the American people. As long as we have a two party system, we need frameworks that push these two parties to work together instead of running rampant each time the balance of power shifts."

"It is short-sighted thinking. What happens when the other party is in charge and they can pass all controversial bills into law? We shouldn't be agreeing on laws where a majority of the country thinks they are correct. In my opinion...we should always try to make decisions based on the law itself which should be agreed to by at least some of the "other side" regardless of which party is the majority."

• "Due to the fact that the VP is the tie breaker in the Senate the filibuster is helpful to ensure that in our divided world that we don’t have a simple split between two ideological sides. Until a law is passed for true valid representation in fair districts across all states and territories the arcane should remain the standard."

"Some version of it should remain in place, because a simple majority vote in a senate makes it far to easy for a party with slim control to push through extreme legislation opposed by nearly half of the country's representatives. Instead we need politicians who are willing to hash out their differences to make acceptable compromises when needed, and also not repeatedly waste time on futile efforts or strong arm tactics. Our leaders are supposed to represent ALL of our people (even the 30-49% of their own constituents who did not vote for them, and even those that did not vote at all)."

• "The filibuster requirement of broad support should drive the negotiation of compromises and amendments, thereby making any bill more appealing to both parties. A simple majority would instantly become a one party mandate - which would not reflect the needs and desires of the nation as a whole. Our country would become much less of a democracy, slow and messy as that may be."

"The filibuster has a time tested purpose that protects the American people from simple majority vote of questionable legislation. Frankly, the vote to pass any law in the senate should be near unanimous. If you don't have a law that can reach that level of support, then you have government overreach or politically motivated mischief. Imagine the level of cooperation across parties and alignment with what is truly in the best interests of the country we would have. Certainly less legislation, but much more relevant and better thought through."

It should be abolished (15%) – "If it is eliminated, we would see a jump in actual legislation getting accomplished. As of now, we pay these folks six figures to mostly sit on their rears and squabble like adolescents."

• "We need a Congress that actually works for the people, in line with constitutional principles, instead of political garbage that is not fact based, socially acceptable or in line with our founding principles of freedom and individual independence. The filibuster is simple a visible extension of this ongoing division between those who want to change our republic to a bureaucratic socialist failure (leftist liberals) and those who do not (conservatives)."

Unsure/other (13%) – "The filibuster should be restored to the way it used to be. There were two changes that made a filibuster too easy. The first was making it a silent filibuster. No one has to talk. Change it back. You want to continue debate, get up there and debate. The second change is called two track. It used to be that if there was a filibuster, nothing else could get done in the Senate, until the filibuster was resolved. Two track made it so if there was a filibuster, you can just move on to something else. These two changes made filibusters too easy. Change these two things back to the way they originally were and filibusters will be harder, and so there will be less of them."