In his latest column, Nathaniel Haas made an argument for the elimination of the filibuster. While the piece is well written and clearly well-researched, it ultimately comes to an erroneous conclusion. In short, Haas argued the filibuster—which, incidentally, he is incorrectly using as a blanket term to refer to both holds and actual filibusters—hinders the majority’s ability to move legislation:

These days, the support of the majority is not good enough to pass legislation. Think about that for a moment: these days, put simply, democracy is no longer rule by the majority—in the Senate, to move legislation, a super-majority of 60 votes in support is needed.

SEE ALSO: It's Time To End The Filibuster Once And For All

Unfortunately, this is a false premise. Not because of his assertion that the Senate hinders the operations of the majority—it does. It is the idea that the Senate should operate by majority rule that is wrong. The truth of the matter is this: the Senate was not designed to promulgate majority rule.

When the Senate was created through the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, its intent was to protect the views of the minority from being trampled on by more populous states, which would always have a majority in the population-based House of Representatives.

On a deeper level, given that senators would be selected by their State Legislatures until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, and as a result would consist only of wealthy, white men, the Senate also served as a means of ensuring an educated upper class would be able to stop the people from passing legislation in the passion of the moment. While this may sound undemocratic, the upper class, and in particular its male constituents, were at the time the only Americans with significant access to education and were thus seen as statesmen who could counter the often emotional or unruly voice of the people.

As Washington once said, “We pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Though the Senate is indeed organized based on majority rule—the largest party gets to elect committee chairmen, the President Pro Tempore and so forth—as an institution it functions much more so as a coalition of individuals representing their states. In fact, in many ways the Founders imagined Senators as ambassadors of their sovereign states rather than as members of a party. This idea of the states being sovereign entities was not really defeated until the end of the Civil War in the 1860s.

This is not to say, of course, that the filibuster does not need reform. The lowering of the cloture threshold in 1975 and the elimination of secret holds in 2011 were good steps and consistent with the needs of the time. Another good one would be to require the filibustering senator to actually be on the floor while filibustering, defending his or her case. Painter and Gerhardt’s “delay rule” is another good option, as Mr. Haas mentioned, though it may actually end up hindering the ability of the President to fill executive and judicial branch positions, something desperately needed for the proper functioning of our government.

That having been said, the filibuster is not only a key component to the Senate’s character as the “greatest deliberative body” in the world, but is also a necessary component for protecting the views of the minority. Imagine this: fifteen years ago, the majority of public opinion was against gay marriage. When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was introduced in the 1990s, it was passed 85-14.

Fifteen years later, that bill would never pass. But had the filibuster not existed at the time, those brave enough to stand against the bill would have had no outlet to express their voice and the voice of the then-minority they were representing. The same argument could be made for any number of stances on issues which are popular now, but at one point were the minority view.

When in the majority, it is easy to argue for the elimination of the filibuster; it is telling that of the 51 Democrats in the Senate, over half have never served in the minority. They have never known what it’s like to fight for a cause they believe in without the benefits of the majority—friendly committee chairpersons, getting amendments passed, getting on the calendar, etc.

Haas contends that: “The filibuster is unconstitutional, bad for democracy and nuking it has received support from everyone at some point.”

He is wrong.

The filibuster, while certainly in need of some reform, is entirely constitutional, a protector of democracy, and is opposed largely by those who have never been in the minority and thus have no conception of the filibuster’s importance in allowing minority senators their say.

Eliminating the filibuster would transform the Senate into a mirror image of the House of Representatives, wherein the majority would be able to have their way on everything. The Senate was designed to be better than that.

Read "It's Time To End The Filibuster Once And For All," by Nathaniel Haas, here.

Contact Guest Contributor Sam Dorn here.