Polls showed this week that a majority of those voting supported eliminating the filibuster by a pretty wide margin. The PPP poll done for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee showed 64% supporting killing the filibuster, with 23% wanting to keep it in place. Democrats wanted it gone with 77% support, and independents favored its elimination with 61%, but even 57% of Republicans want it gone.

Polls like this are kind of like a funhouse mirror. Everybody wants to see the filibuster removed if it means your party can gain tactical political advantage. But the intellectually consistent view for small-d democrats is to support majority rule. Yes, it may make it easier for Republicans to pass their agenda when they have a clean sweep of the White House and both houses of Congress. But they would still be constrained by public opinion (yes: that was the only reason Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme fell, it actually never came up for a vote in the Senate). In addition, this would institute accountability for political parties. If the public wants to put Republicans in charge of the entire government, they should get to pass their agenda. And the same for the Democrats. It’s fundamental to democracy that we get the opportunity to judge politicians based on what they’ve done, not what they could do if they get 60 consistent votes in one branch of Congress.

Adam Green of the PCCC said, “Even among a skewed 2010 electorate with depressed Democratic turnout and high Republican turnout, voters are tired of obstruction in the Senate and overwhelmingly support the boldest filibuster reform possible: the Constitutional norm of majority rule. Democrats can resist the inevitable Republican protests that will come with such reform with the full knowledge that even a Republican-voting electorate supports Democrats being bold on this issue.”

What’s more, the filibuster is gone as soon as Republicans get control of the government, anyway. There’s no doubt that they will move with total unanimity to easier change the rules at the beginning of Congress or use the nuclear option. Their base will demand it and they’ll follow through. We might as well get this done and make the Senate functional. In the short term, this means getting on board with Tom Udall’s suggestion that he will make in January that the Senate has the ability to change its rules by majority vote.

On a related note, just to answer the question of what the Democrats ought to do in the Senate for the next two years, I would say “confirming machine.” All the appointments and judicial nominees should be gotten out of the way. This doesn’t require House approval at all. Most of them were delayed because Democrats wanted to schedule important legislation and not take the time going through the filibusters to pass nominees. No important legislation will pass now. The judicial branch is actually in crisis. This is something Leader Reid ought to do.

UPDATE: Here’s a break in the firewall: Republican Senator-elect Dan Coats supports filibuster reform.

SIEGEL: Republicans in the minority in the past couple of years have invoked the threat of filibuster a lot more often than was common when you were in the Senate in the 1990s. And I wonder: Do you think that it serves the institution well to require 60 votes for every issue of consequence since your party aspires to be in the majority within a couple of years? And wouldn’t Democrats do the same thing to every bill that your party wants?

Mr. COATS: I think what we need is the opportunity to debate and have an up-or-down vote on every issue. Filibustering the motion to proceed -that is, we can’t even go forward and talk about an issue without overcoming or without gaining a 60-vote majority for it – I would support removing that provision. I think the American people deserve to have the issues debated regardless of which side they’re on, so that they are fully aware of what their representatives and senators are voting for and voting against.

This wouldn’t end the filibuster entirely, but it certainly would reduce the time spent on Senate business and make the chamber a bit more functional. There are a number of fixes like this that should be advanced while moving to the ultimate goal of majority rule.