To the Editor:

Re “Abolish the Senate Filibuster” (Op-Ed, Aug. 13):

I disagree with former Senator Harry Reid about abolishing the filibuster outright. Instead we ought to require a return to the speaking filibuster, in which a senator or series of senators must talk continuously, such as Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Filibusters would then be few and far between and used for really important issues — and they would make for great TV.

Douglas McCone

Wayne, Pa.

To the Editor:

While I respect former Senator Harry Reid’s devotion to the institution in which he so long and honorably served, his call for an end to the filibuster hardly goes far enough. The Senate’s willingness to tolerate legions of unconfirmed acting appointees, among other derelictions, demonstrates that it is well on its way to making itself irrelevant. It is time to finish the job.

The Senate deserves roughly the same marginal status as the British House of Lords. It should no longer be allowed to delay legislation passed by the more representative House.

More representative? Two senators from Wyoming (population about 580,000 — less than my home county in New Jersey) carry more than 68 times the voting weight as California’s two senators. But it’s far worse than that: As our population increasingly concentrates in fewer states, less than 20 percent of Americans are thinly spread through 26 states that can — and do — control the Senate to the detriment of the other 80 percent of us.