Brian Carroll

Strongly agree

No, it is a necessary check against the tyranny of the majority

This matches ASP’s emphasis on limiting concentrated power and guarding against ‘tyranny of the majority’ through institutions that require wider consensus—an idea rooted in Madisonian checks and balances even if the filibuster itself is not in the Constitution. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

ASP’s communitarian, anti-polarization posture aligns more with keeping institutional brakes that encourage broader agreement rather than simple-majority swings; they tend to be wary of majoritarian power in a highly polarized two-party system. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, without it laws would wildly flip-flop every election cycle

ASP would likely agree that simple-majority lawmaking in a polarized era can produce unstable policy oscillation; they tend to prefer durable, broadly supported legislation over rapid partisan reversals. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

Yes, but only for voting rights or constitutional matters

ASP has strong commitments on voting access and constitutional norms, but it is not clearly identified with a carve-out approach to filibuster reform; their broader preference for structural checks makes this conditional abolition uncertain. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes

The American Solidarity Party generally favors decentralization, checks and balances, and consensus-oriented governance; outright abolishing the filibuster to empower bare majorities cuts against that instinct, even if the party also supports functional government. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, the minority should not be able to hold the government hostage

The framing that the minority is ‘holding the government hostage’ points toward majoritarianism; ASP is more likely to emphasize protecting minority rights and fostering cross-party compromise than weakening minority leverage. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.