I guess the main argument against that is the one that one of the NYT columnists, either Dowd or Collins I think, made in a column the other day: through the Senate and its considerable power, the small states already have a serious advantage. Any rule or system that requires even more votes in the Senate - i.e., even more support from smaller states - to pass, makes that advantage even greater.

Yeah. The crux of the matter is that that one small rule change that the Senate passed, without the House or Supreme Court or president or anyone else having a say in it, results in a de facto requirement of 60 votes for almost any remotely controversial legislation.

I agree, it really doesn't seem to be going the right way. At the time of the Sotomayor confirmation, a few Republicans were taking steps in the right direction, but with all this health care fuss, partisanship seems to be running as high as ever. But as you say, if this is how it's gonna be from now on, both parties are just going to take turns in winning and then losing elections, with American voters growing more and more discontent with both parties. Republicans - like Brown now in Massachusetts - are getting votes not because people think they'd do better, but because people want the Democrats out of power. It's turning very ugly, and very much not what the US needs to take on the challenges of the 21st century (not that this is strictly an American problem, many countries seem to have some variation of it).