What the study found
Eliminating the filibuster would likely affect gridlock only in a narrow set of circumstances. The authors describe the practical effects of removing it as more muted than some people believe.
Why the authors say this matters
The study suggests that ending the filibuster is not a panacea for perennial gridlock in Washington. The authors conclude that its effects would be limited rather than broadly transformative.
What the researchers tested
The researchers derived a series of legislative bargaining models and used data on gridlock from Binder (2015). They then ran simulations to examine what would happen to outcomes if the filibuster were removed.
What worked and what didn't
The simulations indicate that removing the filibuster would likely change gridlock in only a narrow set of circumstances. The results also suggest that the practical impact of getting rid of it would be more limited than some advocates claim.
What to keep in mind
The abstract does not describe specific limitations beyond the scope of the simulations and the use of gridlock data from Binder (2015). It also does not provide details on which circumstances would be affected most.
Key points
- Removing the filibuster would likely affect gridlock only in a narrow set of circumstances.
- The paper describes the practical effects of ending the filibuster as more muted than some believe.
- The researchers built legislative bargaining models and ran simulations using gridlock data from Binder (2015).
- The abstract says ending the filibuster is not a panacea for Washington gridlock.
Disclosure
- Research title:
- Removing the filibuster would likely have limited effects
- Authors:
- Adam Ramey
- Institutions:
- New York University
- Publication date:
- 2026-04-24
- OpenAlex record:
- View
- Image credit:
- Photo by jermainewill on Pixabay · Pixabay License
Get the weekly research newsletter
Stay current with peer-reviewed research without reading academic papers — one filtered digest, every Friday.