The election of Scott Brown to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate has again focused attention on the Senate filibuster rule. To end debate on legislation requires 60 votes - three-fifths of the Senate. When sworn-in, Brown will become the 41st Republican senator.

The immediate impact is on health care reform legislation. Brown told voters that if elected he would deny Democrats the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster threat and pass a health care bill. It also gives the Republican 41 the opportunity to derail any legislation they don't like.

Critics of the filibuster say it is an archaic rule that blocks the will of the majority and contributes to gridlock in Washington. Traditionalists point to its long history of serving as a check on the majority's ability to ram through legislation. It can force compromise, or at least a pause in the action to consider alternatives.

The problem is not the concept of the filibuster, but the namby-pamby rules that exist in the modern Senate. Rules allow for a "procedural" filibuster. Senators only have to declare a filibuster. Unless the majority can muster 60 votes to block the make-believe debate, the legislation halts.

No longer does anyone have to stand, as South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond did in 1957, and keep speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Thurmond successfully blocked civil rights legislation, as successive filibusters did until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, with a cloture vote ending a 57-day debate.

During the 1930s, the Depression era, Sen. Huey P. Long of Louisiana used the filibuster against numerous bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor.

These and other senators over the years had to keep talking if they wanted to stop a proposal. If the public got angry about the hold-up, they knew where to direct that anger - the filibustering senators who would not shut up. True filibusters helped flesh out public opinion on an issue, with citizens either rallying to the cause of the bloviating senators or demanding an end to their talk. A public outcry finally persuaded 60 senators to end the anti-civil rights' filibuster.

It is too easy to allow obstructionists to simply declare a filibuster and not have to back it up.

Theoretically, the Senate majority leader - currently Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. - can force filibustering senators to talk, not just pretend. While he should, there is no indication he will.

If the Senate fails to return to the true filibuster, it means a supermajority will be necessary to pass any legislation, which is a recipe for gridlock.

If the 41 want to stop health care reform, let them work for it.

Paul Choiniere is editorial page editor.