The filibuster allows a minority in United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The filibuster ends when “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” vote to close debate by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. Since there are 100 Senators now, 60 votes are required for cloture.

The recent failure of cloture on the bill to establish the bipartisan Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. Under the current Senate Rule XXII 60 votes are required for closure. The vote was 54 to 35 and closure failed.

Of the 89 votes cast a little over 60% favored cloture. But since the rule specifies “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” the cloture failed. If the rule was changed just slightly to ‘two-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn‘ must vote to continue a filibuster or ‘three-fifths of the votes (yea or nay) cast by Senators duly chosen and sworn‘ can end the debate, the outcome would have been much different.

As it stands now, a failure to vote has the same effect as a negative vote. This does not seem right to me. If we go the route of ‘two-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn‘ can continue a filibuster, I think we have improved the situation but it still bothers me that a failure to vote favors one side,

I like the modification where only the votes for one side or the other are countered. In other words ‘three-fifths of the votes (yea or nay) cast by Senators duly chosen and sworn‘. The Senators may need to work on the wording a bit to make sure the rule is clear. But I do like the idea that your vote only counts if you actually vote. A failure to vote on an issue should not help either side.