Are Senate majorities unable to secure their agendas due to obstruction by the minority, thus rendering the Senate an anti-majoritarian institution? Why are minority rights not exploited even more fully than they are? Why did the Senate move to adopt a formal rule limiting debate in 1917, and what have been the implications of that reform? These are the primary questions to which Wawro and Schickler offer answers in their book. The authors employ close historical analysis of key debates as well as both conceptual models and statistical models to help explain the theory, practice and continuity of obstruction in the Senate. They have gathered corresponding evidence to support the contention that Senate procedure remains so loosely regulated because its members manage to accomplish just enough to prevent the formation of a majority willing to pay the costs of cracking down on obstruction. (Gould 2006, Moscardelli
Are Senate majorities unable to secure their agendas due to obstruction by the minority, thus rendering the Senate an anti-majoritarian institution? Why are minority rights not exploited even more fully than they are? Why did the Senate move to adopt a formal rule limiting debate in 1917, and what have been the implications of that reform? These are the primary questions to which Wawro and Schickler offer answers in their book. The authors employ close historical analysis of key debates as well as both conceptual models and statistical models to help explain the theory, practice and continuity of obstruction in the Senate. They have gathered corresponding evidence to support the contention that Senate procedure remains so loosely regulated because its members manage to accomplish just enough to prevent the formation of a majority willing to pay the costs of cracking down on obstruction. (Gould 2006, Moscardelli