Why do they need 60 votes in order for the bill to advance to the floor (as opposed to a simple majority)? Is this related to the filibuster, or is it a different set of rules?
Yes, it’s the Fillibuster. The Senate, in theory, has no limits at all to the amount of debate on any measure. Any Senator can talk for as long as they want. But they do have to have some way to decide to stop talking and vote, and they do that by invoking cloture. They need 60 Senators to agree that the debate is over, and then they can schedule the actual vote.
The measure still needs 50 votes to pass. But it needs 60 votes to decide to hold that simple, majority vote. Which is kind of backwards.
It gets even more backwards - any Senator at any time can declare a Senate rule is being violated by a filibuster and ask a presiding officer (e.g. another senator, usually committee chairs) to fix the violation by prohibiting filibusters under those circumstances going forward. If that presiding officer disagrees, the Senator can ask for the full chamber to vote on it, and if 50+1 Senators disagree with the presiding officer the new rule regarding filibusters goes into effect.
The Senate is filled with arcane rules from the 1800’s that I’m convinced only five people actually understand. They get most of their work done with unanimous consent, because using the actual rules is too hard.
Why do they need 60 votes in order for the bill to advance to the floor (as opposed to a simple majority)? Is this related to the filibuster, or is it a different set of rules?
Yes, it’s the Fillibuster. The Senate, in theory, has no limits at all to the amount of debate on any measure. Any Senator can talk for as long as they want. But they do have to have some way to decide to stop talking and vote, and they do that by invoking cloture. They need 60 Senators to agree that the debate is over, and then they can schedule the actual vote.
The measure still needs 50 votes to pass. But it needs 60 votes to decide to hold that simple, majority vote. Which is kind of backwards.
It gets even more backwards - any Senator at any time can declare a Senate rule is being violated by a filibuster and ask a presiding officer (e.g. another senator, usually committee chairs) to fix the violation by prohibiting filibusters under those circumstances going forward. If that presiding officer disagrees, the Senator can ask for the full chamber to vote on it, and if 50+1 Senators disagree with the presiding officer the new rule regarding filibusters goes into effect.
To sum that up in a sentence, “by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule” and kill the filibuster whenever they want.
The Senate is filled with arcane rules from the 1800’s that I’m convinced only five people actually understand. They get most of their work done with unanimous consent, because using the actual rules is too hard.