美民主党人寻找投票权立法的途径(下)

So, what are they going to go about potential rules changes?

那么，对于潜在的规则改变，他们会做些什么呢?

How can they get around the filibuster?

他们怎样才能避开阻挠议事?

Here's my reporting.

这是我的报告。

Of the many options that are on the table, these are the ones that are the most under consideration. Let's take a look quickly.

在摆在桌面上的许多选项中，这些是最需要考虑的选项。 让我们快速看一看。

First, the first option that I know many Democrats would like is to just get rid of the 60-vote threshold altogether.

首先，我知道很多民主党人希望的第一个选择是完全取消60票的门槛。

But, honestly, Senators Manchin and Sinema are not on board.

但是，说实话，参议员曼钦和西尼马并不赞成。

And that, frankly, is off the table.

坦白说，这是不可能的。

So, what else, option two?

那么，还有什么，第二种选择吗?

A carve-out from the filibuster just for voting rights.

从阻挠议事中剥离出来只是为了投票权。

And, Judy, some 48 Democrats probably are on board that idea specifically.

朱迪，大概有48名民主党人会特别支持这个想法。

But it doesn't seem to have enough to get over the hurdle and to have this carve-out work,

但似乎没有准备充分来克服障碍，完成这项分离工作，

even though there was a carve-out just last year for the debt ceiling in regards to a 60-vote threshold.

尽管去年就有一个分离债务上限的方案，涉及60票的门槛。

So let's talk about one more option, option three, the talking filibuster.

那么让我们再来谈谈另一个选项，第三个选项，冗长演说。

Everybody's seen Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

大家都看过弗兰克·卡普拉的《史密斯先生去华盛顿》

The idea here would be that senators would have to be on the floor.

这里的想法是，参议员必须在场。

They would have a two-speech limit, which is the current rule.

他们会有两句话的限制，这是当前的规则。

But what this would do is, it would be two weeks and weeks potentially of debate on a single bill.

但这样做的后果是，可能会有两周的时间就一项法案进行辩论。

But at the end of those weeks of debate, it would end.

但在这几周的辩论结束时，它将会结束。

And the idea is, then there could be just an up-or-down majority vote on a simple piece of legislation.

这个想法是，这样就可以对一个简单的立法进行赞成或反对的多数投票。

I talked to Senator King about that as well.

我也跟金参议员谈过这个问题。

He thinks that kind of idea could elevate the debate in general.

他认为，这种想法可以提升辩论的总体水平。

Well, as you know, there's very little in the way of real debate in the Senate.

正如你所知，在参议院，真正的辩论很少。

This would allow the American people to hear the Democrats argue for why we need to do this.

这将让美国人民听到民主党人为我们为什么需要这样做而辩论。

And they'd hear the Republicans argue for why we don't need to do it, rather than an occasional speech from Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell.

他们会听到共和党人争论为什么我们不需要这样做，而不是查克·舒默或米奇·麦康奈尔偶尔发表的演讲。

And I think that could be a powerful way of solving this problem.

我认为这可能是解决这个问题的一个强有力的方法。

And, of course, though, the problem is that would open potentially a can of worms.

当然，问题是，这可能会引发一场棘手的问题。

And one other last thing, Judy, I want to just mention, Joe Manchin, my reporting is, isn't just having concerns about these kinds of rules changes, but he has a real problem with the way the rule would have to change.

还有最后一件事，朱迪，我想说的是，乔·曼钦，我的报道不仅关注这些规则的改变，而且关注他对必须改变规则的方式存在一个真正的问题。

He thinks that sort of changing the rule in the Senate should take two-thirds vote of the Senate, not just 50, plus one.

他认为，改变参议院的规则应该得到参议院三分之二的投票，而不是50票。

And that procedural hiccup for him is a really serious issue that Democrats are trying to get around.

对他来说，程序上的问题是一个非常严重的问题，民主党人正试图绕开这个问题。

That's a lot to follow, the minutiae of parliamentary procedure and all the rest of it, Lisa, so we appreciate your doing it.

接下来还有很多需要关注，议会程序的细节和其他的一切，丽莎，所以我们很感谢你做的工作。

But just very quickly, we know some Republicans talking about electoral count reform.

但是很快，我们知道一些共和党人在谈论选举计数改革。

Where does that stand?

这是什么立场?

There are efforts, in fact, some bipartisan efforts, to try and get an electoral count reform going, something that would change the way we certify elections.

有一些努力，事实上，一些两党合作的努力，试图进行选举计数改革，这将改变我们确认选举的方式。

But I think that we're still months and months away from any real fruitful effort there.

但我认为，我们还需要几个月的时间才能在那里做出真正富有成效的努力。

And we know Democrats are saying that's a diversion.

我们知道民主党人说这是在转移注意力。

Republicans are saying they're serious.

共和党人说他们是认真的。