The phrase "taking a walk" may get a whole new meaning if the South Carolina Senate changes a rule dealing with filibusters.

In large part, the Senate is considered the home of more collegial, deliberate and thoughtful debate than the S.C. House because a minority of senators has the ability to hold up measures pushed by the majority. In other words, the minority on any issue can talk a bill to death until someone in the majority wises up and realizes the proposed measure is too radical or softens it to deal with concerns of the minority.

While some folks don't like the power this tool provides the minority, it has been useful because it often leads to better laws. Why? Because it forces opposing sides to compromise.

Filibusters aren't used all that often, but have been used more in recent years, after the Senate reorganized from a non-partisan seniority system to a partisan system. Currently, members of a minority on any issue can hold it up when it gets to the Senate floor for debate by continuing to talk and talk about it -- to filibuster. To stop the debate, at least 28 senators currently are needed to close off the filibuster.

Over the years, this so-called cloture number, which has varied from 27 to 30 or so, has been sacrosanct. That's because senators from both parties and sides of various debates have known that one day, they might want to use a filibuster for something they view as bad. So over time, regardless of their position on an issue, many have been hesitant to vote for cloture to sit down a filibustering senator. Because of the fear they might face a halt to debate on something they wanted badly, the filibuster has been an effective threat and tool to bring people together on tough issues.

Now, however, a handful of editorial writers, some Senate Republicans and Gov. Mark Sanford desperately want change so they can "get things done." They want to change the formula on how to curb debate from the simple number 28 to "three-fifths of members present."

In other words, they only would have to get 60 percent of the people in the Senate chamber to vote to close debate to move forward. It might not sound like a big deal, especially when the 28 is 60 percent of the state's 46 senators.

But it is a big deal because it means if one senator is filibustering in the middle of the night and all of his colleagues in the minority are elsewhere, then just two senators in the majority could pass a motion to cut off the filibuster's debate. (Two out of three is 67 percent.)

It also means senators will start "taking walks." When a vote to close debate arises, some senators will leave the chamber so they're not present and can't be counted in the percentage to close off debate. In other words, weak-willed senators who don't want to "sit a colleague down" just won't participate and will be able to safely say that he or she didn't vote to cut off debate. Their walk, however, affected the outcome. And that's not good for the process and accountability.

Critics of the filibuster say it has been abused recently and they can't move legislation they want through the chamber. They say the very process that helped Republicans preserve their rights and have a voice when Democrats controlled the legislature needs to change so they can get important legislation passed.

Hogwash. First, when did Republicans seek to pass more laws? They traditionally have been opposed to more laws, more government, more bureaucracy.

Second and perhaps more importantly, changing the cloture rule will change the historic role of the Senate -- to cool off firebrand legislation that comes from the House.

It's remarkable that during the eight-year gubernatorial term of GOP Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. -- one of the state's most successful governors -- a startling amount of legislation Campbell wanted got passed with a Democratic-led General Assembly. By using compromise and working with lawmakers, Campbell successfully pushed a gas tax increase, corporate tax cuts, restructuring and more.

In other words, Campbell didn't need a rules change to get things done with a legislature of another party. Now Sanford, who hasn't had a major piece of legislation passed in two years, wants to change the rules even though his own party is in control.

"For the Senate to kow-tow to a governor is as bad as a governor having to kow-tow to the Senate," said Senate Minority Leader John Land, D-Clarendon. "Neither should be subservient to the other."

"The filibuster rule is the rule that makes the Senate what it is ... . If we do [change] it, we will have two houses of representatives without deliberate debate."