Yes the filibuster does give a lot of leverage to a small group who like to style themselves as centrists but who are in reality high maintenance, ego-maniacal, pork barrel gougers out to secure their own careers and petty self-interests. But the answer to that is to select better Democratic Party candidates and build an even bigger Democratic majority. What the hell is Connecticut doing electing a Lieberman under any party label?
Yes I know the senate electoral system favours smaller, more rural, more conservative states - but that is a separate issue. notes from no w here
Its not as if there are not ample opportunities in the Madisonian system to block change - it is designed to make it easier to block than to enact change. The separation of the Cabinet from the Legislature, the division of the Legislature into two bodies elected on two different electoral rhythms - we have far more veto-points than your parliamentary system.
However the filibuster is an accidental later addition to that system. The motion to bring the measure to a vote was removed from the Senate rules on the grounds that it was an unnecessary procedure, having rarely been used - not foreseeing the opportunity for obstructionism that it opened up.
The most immediate check available on the filibuster is for Money bills, which are Constitutionally required to begin in the House, and which could be passed with a title included limiting debate in the Senate.
The "problem" of population representation in the Senate is due in large part to the oversized states that the US now has - the largest state compared to the median in 1800 was nowhere near as big as the largest state compared to the median today.
We could begin the process with the worst offender, since California is entirely dysfunctional and so dividing it into two could not make things any worse. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
