Modeling the Changing Patterns of Policymaking

Caltech political scientist Alexander Hirsch and a Stanford colleague have developed mathematical models to understand how the filibuster affects policymaking, with their work published in the American Journal of Political Science. The research suggests that calls to eliminate the filibuster rest on a false assumption: that it's clearly bad for governance. The models show something more nuanced. When ideological disagreement is moderate, the filibuster can actually encourage quality policymaking, because legislators invest heavily in proposals to appeal to a broader range of peers. But in a highly polarized Senate, the filibuster creates gridlock that kills productive policy development. Hirsch notes that the bigger lesson is how often major changes to longstanding government procedures produce unintended consequences we never anticipated—which is why understanding these trade-offs matters before reforming an institution.

Listen to this story

Hear this and more stories in a personalized audio briefing.

Open The Chonkerton