Democratic comedy or tragedy?

I have to admit that I am not quite familiar with American political traditions. However it's quite interesting how robust the American Constitution is, only few additional amendments have been added, or edited since its establishment in the founding thirteen states (1787). It appears robust enough to allow the tragi-comic phenomena of filibustering! Only a few changes have been implemented into Senate rules to reduce filibustering. Perhaps it is as the anecdote goes when Thomas Jefferson pondering of the Senate asks of its purpose from George Washington. Thomas Jefferson gets as a reply from George Washington a question as to why he (Thomas Jefferson) pours his coffee into a saucer? Thomas Jefferson replies plainly ‘’to cool it’’. George Washington proclaims that the purpose of the Senate is the same but in legislation.

But to talk bills into death was surely not what Americas founding fathers intended?

What George Washington meant by his explanation is that the Senate acts as a firewall against hasty decision making from the Congress. Correctly it is seen as an advantage (other than purposes of regional representation in a federation) in a bicameral representative system with fairly equally strong chambers. Decisions made through a bicameral system are widely seen as more robust through empiric studies.

In all this I cannot see where on earth filibustering belongs! Or a never ending debate? I was laughing knowingly that filibustering is undemocratic (record set at total 83 days). It is not democratic that in decisions requiring simple majority requiers in reaility consensus decisions (due to your two party system). As 60 of 100 Senators is the requierment to end the debate and to proceed into voting. Very amusing praxis which the American Constitution allows.