A filibuster is a tactic used in the United States Senate to delay or block a vote by prolonging debate or delaying proceedings, often to prevent a bill from coming to a final vote. The most famous form is extended speechmaking, but a filibuster can also involve procedural holds, objections to unanimous consent, or delaying tactics that force cloture votes. In practice, most filibusters aim to exhaust the majority enough to kill or alter a measure. Terms like “cloture” refer to the procedure used to end debate, typically requiring a supermajority (historically 60 votes) to proceed to a final vote on most legislation. This threshold can be bridged through presidential nominations or, in some contexts, via changes to Senate precedent or rules. Ways critics and supporters discuss stopping or reforming the filibuster

• Change the rules: The most direct method is to amend the Senate’s cloture rule (Rule XXII) to require fewer votes to end debate, or to eliminate the filibuster for all or certain types of legislation. This would typically demand a substantial majority in the Senate or a formal decision by a large portion of its members. The exact procedure and viability depend on the chamber’s rule book and political dynamics.
• The nuclear option (reform by ruling): A majority could establish a new interpretation of how cloture works or when it applies, effectively reducing the number of votes needed to end debate. This relies on parliamentary rulings and subsequent appeals, and has been used in the past to change how cloture applies to nominations.
• Use of unanimous consent and scheduling: In practice, much time can be wasted through objections to unanimous consent, quorum calls, or procedural holds. Some strategies focus on limiting or removing opportunities to employ these tactics, though they do not abolish the filibuster outright.
• Bipartisan agreements and carve-outs: In some cases, negotiations produce agreements that limit filibuster-related delay for specific topics or introduce temporary rules or sunset provisions.

Key considerations

• Political feasibility: Changes to the filibuster are deeply tied to the current partisan balance and the willingness of a critical mass of senators to alter long-standing practice. Historically, reforms have faced significant resistance, especially when the minority party holds leverage.
• Precedent vs. formal rule change: Some reform paths rely on formal rule changes (hard to achieve), while others rely on establishing new Senate precedents via point-of-order rulings and appeals, which can be more attainable but also less stable over time.
• Impact on governance: Abolishing or weakening the filibuster accelerates passage of legislation but can also reduce minority protections and incentives for bipartisan compromise.

If you’d like, I can tailor a concise, up-to-date explanation with the most current reform options and their political viability, drawing from recent Senate rules changes and credible analyses.