The filibuster is in the news these days, it seems. Harry Reid recently admitted on the Senate floor that he had been wrong not to follow the push by progressives in his own party to revamp the filibuster rules when he had the chance. Now, it seems, there's a lawsuit which will attempt to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the filibuster as being unconstitutional.

What is striking about that article is the graph, though. For those who argue "both parties play games with the filibuster," this one graph shows how filibuster use has exploded in the last three years. This isn't politics as usual, to put it bluntly. Republicans have taken things to a whole new level.

Putting all of that aside, though, the core question here is if the filibuster were to be changed, what would it change to?

There have been plenty of proposals offered, such as lessening the number of votes from 60 to something like 55. This has historic precedent, because the original bar was set at two-thirds, and reduced to 60 in the 1970s. If the Supremes wiped out the filibuster (which I consider a longshot), the Senate may revert to House-type rules of requiring a simple majority. More creative ideas than these have also been put forth, such as holding multiple votes over time, with each vote requiring a smaller number to break a filibuster -- second vote might need 58, third vote 56, etc.

The problem with tinkering with parliamentary rules, however, has always been the Law of Unintended Consequences. No party, after all, ever stays permanently in the minority or majority. Which means what might sound dandy right now to Democrats could wind up biting them on the hindquarters a few elections down the road (or even next January, for that matter).

I approach suggestions to tinker with the filibuster cautiously, myself. Sure, the system is pretty darn near broken, but would "fixing" it actually make things worse, in the long run? It's a scary question, to be sure.

If I were Harry Reid, I would seriously consider one action which I believe he could take without even a rules change. It's an easy idea to grasp -- make them actually filibuster! Every single vote Republicans wanted to shut down, make them stand up and endlessly talk, for hours and hours on end. Force a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment every single time. Let the television cameras show their endless speeches, and that will become the media story.

I must admit, I haven't actually checked whether this would indeed require a Senate rules change or not. If not, I would strongly urge the Majority Leader to consider this option. At this point, it's the least that could be done to break the logjam.

[What do you think should be done, if anything, to reform the filibuster? Have your say in the comments....]

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant