The use of threatened filibusters, cloture votes and the like have become increasingly used in the last 10-15 years, as the Senate has become more polarized and as the party caucuses have become more demanding and threatening to their members. The record shows that BOTH parties have used these Senate rules to block proposed legislation from votes on the floor. Basically, the technique changes the Constitutional requirements of the Senate from "simple majority" to a super-majority of 60 members. The record shows that the Republicans have used cloture votes far more frequently than the Democrats, which probably resulted in them being called "the party of no". But make no mistake, BOTH parties use cloture votes to circumvent the Constitutional definition of how legislation gets passed in the Senate if it meets their political purposes.

There are lots of reasons for how partisanship has changed the way our government. The cloture vote, arguably non-Constitutional, may be the biggest reason for our political stalemate. Very simply, legislation can be passed by a simple majority in the House, but House-passed bills can be stopped from even getting a Senate vote by the threat of cloture.

Actually, the Senate rules are even worse than their internal rule requiring a 60-vote majority to prevent a filibuster. The Senate has another rule wherein any single Senator can prevent a bill from being presented on the floor of the Senate for a vote. Such blockage--a simple "hold" on the legislation--can be done by a single Senator and can be done indefinitely and anonymously. That rule is most often used to prevent a person appointed to a federal position from receiving Senate confirmation--over 80 people, mostly judges, who have been approved by the Senate judicial committee are being "held" from a confirmation vote on the Senate floor by one Senator or another for unexplained reasons. But the "hold' can be placed on any legislation, not just appointments.