Good thread and article but one thing I disagree with is inherently linking partisanship *and* gridlock. They aren't innate companions. Congress can be more polarized & less gridlocked, & vice versa.

Eliminating the filibuster would reduce gridlock. But... https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1296096146612539392

...would it increase partisanship? Probably. Reducing the vote threshold to pass a bill will likely fuel more majority party only legislating.

We've already seen that in the Senate try to adopt that strategy.

In 2017, the Senate did three things: confirm judges/noms, pass (mostly hollow) budget resolutions, and pass reconciliation bills.

Each process circumvented filibusters.

Did that increase polarization? Yeah! Judges face more roll call votes and have seen the highest rate of 'nay' votes on nominees since at least 1977 but, more than likely, ever. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45622

Will reducing nuking legislative threshold increase polarization? It will almost certainly increase the frequency bills are passed by straight majority vote in the Senate.

Given the way current partisan incentives interact with stronger agenda control, it probably safe to assume nuking the filibuster increases observed roll call polarization.

Is that bad? Not necessarily. Government is dysfunctional because of gridlock, not because of polarization. Gridlock occurs because of polarization & procedural institutions. Polarization is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Similarly, gridlock is not solely due to the filibuster but it plays a pretty big role in the inability to pass legislation (routine, ambitious, or otherwise).

OTOH, killing the filibuster would increase democratic accountability, presenting voters with a clearer picture of who's to blame/reward for policies and programs.

That is a net improvement over the current situation.

Partisanship would *probably* increase in a filibuster-less Senate. But we should weigh that against less gridlock and greater democratic accountability, which I would argue are bigger problems than Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders disagreeing with each another.