What other countries employ legislative procedures similar to the
filibuster in the U.S. Senate (even loosley similar)? Please provide
sources.

---

Clarification of Question by jhowe_3677-ga on 24 Jul 2005 14:29 PDT

in light of the comment below, which countries come closest to:
a) an unlimited (or minimally limited) right of debate; or
b) an unrestricted (or minimally restricted) right of amendment?

---

Clarification of Question by jhowe_3677-ga on 24 Jul 2005 14:30 PDT

...in either upper or lower houses

---

Clarification of Question by jhowe_3677-ga on 26 Jul 2005 16:29 PDT

in light of further comments below, a paid answer will confirm that
the following is true:

"The Senate is unique among legislative institutions in
the world, in part because of two rules - one, the unlimited right of
debate, which can become a filibuster, and the unrestricted right of
amendment."

at least one additional source verifying this is sufficient.

thanks.

---

Clarification of Question by jhowe_3677-ga on 26 Jul 2005 20:38 PDT

a paid answer showing the limits of the statement (even if technically
true) will need only supply one source example OTHER than Canada,
Korea or Japan where one or both of these procedural features is in
some practical sense present.

I think these sites confirm that the filibuster is a unique procedure
of the US Senate.
In Canada, delay of voting is achieved by different method (explained
below) but this is not a rule of unlimited right of debate.  The "slow
walk" in Korea also of a lesser character.
I am confident that the very many sites on the subject would have
mentioned other nations' similar procedure if they existed.


http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/f/fi/filibuster.htm

Sen. MITCHELL: The Senate is unique among legislative institutions in
the world, in part because of two rules - one, the unlimited right of
debate, which can become a filibuster, and the unrestricted right of
amendment.

http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/04/george_mitchell.php


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

Myoarin

Greetings Jhowe_3677-ga,

"In light of the comment below"  (above this)  I would say Canada,
since the Koreans' "cow walk" seems to have nothing to do with actual
parliamentary procedures.  But since I cannot vouch for the accuracy
of my first comment, I wouldn't want you to accept either one as the
last word on the subject.

I would like to think that Sen. Mitchell's statement is correct.

It would be nice if someone could confirm that.  HARK, HARK!

If you agree, perhaps it would help find a Researcher if you would add
another clarification insisting on confirmation.  They are leary of
posting an answer that does this, since questioners have asked that
such be removed, but if you call for confirmation  - indicating that
it will be accepted as a paid answer - I would hope that that finds
one willing to confirm or refute my comments.
In the latter case, that would be a better answer for you.

Myoarin

HI Jhowe,

Seems that lots of people say that the filibuster is unique, but they
support that in any way.  On a site with a discussion between
politicians, one said that when he had asked representatives in other
countries how their parliament closed debate, he got muddled and
varying answers.

Here is the best I could do:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2005_spr/filibuster.htm

http://www.nihp.org/Issue%20Briefs/Issue-Brief-1-22-03.htm

with this quotation under "Senate" (2nd para.):
"The Senate is unique in the world's democracies in a couple of ways. 
Senators have two powers that no other legislators in the world
possess.  The first is unlimited debate and the second is the ability
to offer unlimited amendments?whether they are relevant or not."

Maybe this will inspire someone to concur or refute.

Myoarin