Should the rules on filibusters and secret holds get rewritten?

[RandomAnthony]

Some talk of changing the filibuster/secret hold rules in the senate...

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/05/1326582...

What do you think?

[Phil]

Nothing should be secret. They are a public body debating (or avoiding) public policy.

Yes, a filibuster should almost NEVER happen.

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

Seems like the name of the person exercising the secret hold usually gets leaked, and that person looks like an idiot. But it is a stupid rule, yes.

The problem (if it is a problem) with the Senate is that it is inherently undemocratic, purposely so. States with tiny populations get two Senators just like states with massive populations. Senators, running every 6 years, have much more leeway to not respond to the whims of the populace than House members who run every 2. It's supposed to serve as the cold antidote to the passions of the House.

Is there some way to reform the filibuster without killing it? I feel like there are rare occasions when it's useful...but it never actually happens anymore, right? You never hear about Senators getting up and reading from the phone book for 34 hours.