Grey Templar wrote:
I am 100% going to need to balance a budget. I am some value less than 100% going to end up needing to know how to give first aid.

Both are IMO important, but I think in terms of mandatory education I think the thing which more people will absolutely need is higher priority.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would argue that the Fillibuster is itself a method to prevent abuse of power. It prevents a majority from simply passing any legislation they wish, IE: it prevents Tyranny of the Majority.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would argue that the Fillibuster is itself a method to prevent abuse of power. It prevents a majority from simply passing any legislation they wish, IE: it prevents Tyranny of the Majority.

Except in this case it was used by the majority party to prevent a bill brought forth by the opposition to even get a vote to go to a second reading.

So this measure you say prevents "tyranny of the majority" in fact ensures it by allowing them to block everything they don't want, which only have limited time allocated to them to debate, whilst allowing them to get votes on their own stuff as they have much more time to debate allocated to it.

United Kingdom
In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, a bill defeated by a filibustering manoeuvre may be said to have been "talked out". The procedures of the House of Commons require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking. Example filibusters in the Commons and Lords include:

In 1874, Joseph Gillis Biggar started making long speeches in the House of Commons to delay the passage of Irish coercion acts. Charles Stewart Parnell, a young Irish nationalist Member of Parliament (MP), who in 1880 became leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, joined him in this tactic to obstruct the business of the House and force the Liberals and Conservatives to negotiate with him and his party. The tactic was enormously successful, and Parnell and his MPs succeeded, for a time, in forcing Parliament to take the Irish Question of return to self-government seriously.

In 1983, Labour MP John Golding talked for over 11 hours during an all-night sitting at the committee stage of the British Telecommunications Bill. However, as this was at a standing committee and not in the Commons chamber, he was also able to take breaks to eat.

On July 3, 1998, Labour MP Michael Foster's Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill was blocked in parliament by opposition filibustering.

In January 2000, filibustering directed by Conservative MPs to oppose the Disqualifications Bill led to cancellation of the day's parliamentary business on Prime Minister Tony Blair's 1000th day in office. However, since this business included Prime Minister's Question Time, William Hague, Conservative leader at that time, was deprived of the opportunity of a high-profile confrontation with the Prime Minister.

On Friday 20 April 2007, a Private Member's Bill aimed at exempting Members of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act was 'talked out' by a collection of MPs, led by Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes and Norman Baker who debated for 5 hours, therefore running out of time for the parliamentary day and 'sending the bill to the bottom of the stack.' However, since there were no other Private Members' Bills to debate, it was resurrected the following Monday.

In January 2011, Labour peers, including most notably John Prescott, were attempting to delay the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010 until after 16 February, the deadline given by the Electoral Commission to allow the referendum on the Alternative Vote to take place on 5 May. On the eighth day of debate, staff in the House of Lords set up camp beds and refreshments to allow peers to rest, for the first time in eight years.

In January 2012, Conservative and Scottish National Party MPs used filibustering to successfully block the Daylight Savings Bill 2010-12, a Private Member's Bill that would put the UK on Central European Time. The filibustering included an attempt by Jacob Rees-Mogg to amend the bill to give the county of Somerset its own time zone, 15 minutes behind London.

In November 2014, Conservative MPs Philip Davies and Christopher Chope successfully filibustered a Private Member's Bill that would prohibit retaliatory evictions. Davies's speech was curtailed by Deputy Speaker Dawn Primarolo for disregarding her authority, after she ordered Davies to wrap up his then-hour long speech. A closure motion moved by the government, which was agreed to 60–0, failed due to being inquorate.

The all-time Commons record for non-stop speaking, six hours, was set by Henry Brougham in 1828, though this was not a filibuster. The 21st century record was set on December 2, 2005 by Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon. Dismore spoke for three hours and 17 minutes to block a Conservative Private Member's Bill, the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill, which he claimed amounted to "vigilante law." Although Dismore is credited with speaking for 197 minutes, he regularly accepted interventions from other MPs who wished to comment on points made in his speech. Taking multiple interventions artificially inflates the duration of a speech, and is seen by many as a tactic to prolong a speech.

In local unitary authorities of England a motion may be carried into closure by filibustering. This results in any additional motions receiving less time for debate by Councillors instead forcing a vote by the Council under closure rules.

 Orlanth wrote:
You are forgetting Paradigm this is not a recent development but part of the way democratic politics works since ancient times.

You have two choices, to allow elected representatives to speak, or not to. Once you choose not then its easy to claim anything is ploy simply because you dont agree with it. You think such a power would not be abused? The right to silence a politician who has too many points to make.
What if they can find many things wrong with the bill?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You are forgetting Paradigm this is not a recent development but part of the way democratic politics works since ancient times.

You have two choices, to allow elected representatives to speak, or not to. Once you choose not then its easy to claim anything is ploy simply because you dont agree with it. You think such a power would not be abused? The right to silence a politician who has too many points to make.
What if they can find many things wrong with the bill?

Surely then the solution is to give each speaker an allotted time in which to make their speech. You get 5 min (or whatever), no more, then you shut the feth up and its on to the next speaker.