THE RULES OF THE Senate were designed to make sure that those in the majority could not push through their proposals without listening to and seriously considering objections.

The very wise idea was that this process would lead to consensus, with those in the majority agreeing to modifications that would address legitimate concerns from those in the minority while still accomplishing their goals. Using this approach, rather than the winner-take-all approach fostered by the larger House, almost always results in better legislation — and greater public respect for the laws and the government.

Unfortunately, the theory rarely works anymore, and the noble filibuster rule has turned the Senate into a place where ideas, both good and bad, go to die without a fight.

The problem isn’t related directly to either political party, although the growing partisanship on both sides exacerbates it. And it certainly isn’t new; it has been a problem for years. But the problem has steadily grown worse, pushed along by the increased coarseness of our politics, the increased use of the effortless filibuster and a smart policy change gone awry.

The effortless filibuster stems from a Senate courtesy: If a single senator objects to a bill, the full Senate won’t consider it without a two-thirds vote. This was supposed to be a temporary block, to make sure the opponent was able to participate in the debate. But over the years, senators started making their objections permanent, so most bills with a single opponent now die without a fight. (The effortless filibuster was taken to absurd heights in 1998, when then-Sen. Holly Cork, in a pique because the House refused to pass a special bill outlawing fishing near her mother’s dock, blocked every House bill that was before the Senate.)

The policy change came in 2000, when the Senate made the wise decision to virtually shut down the practice of attaching whole new laws to the state budget bill. This eliminated the one sure end-run the Senate had for getting around the abuse of the rules.

Gov. Mark Sanford decided to take on the Senate rules after they were used to block consideration of his top legislative priority — cutting income taxes.

But the main problem with the rules isn’t that they prevent the Senate passing major legislation. Unless it is proposed so late in the session that opponents can run the clock on it, a major bill with a core of passionate, committed advocates and with majority support will make it through the gauntlet.

The main problem is that the rules defeat all those good bills that most senators support, but that few if any feel passionately about. It takes so much work to get past the rules that senators simply aren’t willing to put out the effort for a bill they don’t feel strongly about — particularly when doing so eats up the clock and potentially harms the chance of advancing bills they do support passionately.

There’s no perfect way to fix the rules. Any correction is likely to either go too far and stifle the minority or else be too easy to get around. But Mr. Sanford, Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell and a host of other senators are right: Changes must be made. It’s important to preserve minority protections, but the current situation flies in the face of majority rule. And in a democratic society, that is intolerable.