As November’s general election nears, Larry Hogan is making his pitch to Marylanders as an independent-minded, would-be maverick in the Senate. Recently, the former governor aired a TV ad promising that neither Republicans nor Democrats will be able to count on his vote in the Senate.

Hogan’s independent streak raises a question: What does he think of the Senate filibuster? The filibuster, of course, is the Senate rule that prevents most bills from passing without a supermajority of 60 votes. With the exception of a few holdouts, like retiring Sen. Joe Manchin, Democrats have almost universally come out against the existing filibuster. The next time the Democrats control the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, the filibuster could very well be on the chopping block. Republicans, by contrast, have promised to not touch the filibuster. Recently, a number of leading Senate Republicans assured PunchBowl News that they would preserve the filibuster, even if they retook the Senate and Trump won the presidency.

This partisan split over the filibuster leaves one wondering where Hogan stands. It also presents Hogan with an opportunity.

Staking out a middle path between Democrats’ support for getting rid of the filibuster entirely and Republicans’ support for the status quo would align with the overall tenor of Hogan’s candidacy: bowing to neither party, thinking for himself. What would such a middle path look like? It would look like filibuster reform — not scrapping the filibuster wholesale, but also not letting the gridlocked status quo persist.

Hogan should back a specific type of filibuster reform that would advance the core themes of his campaign, like promoting responsible, effective governance and respectful, productive dialogue. Hogan pledges to “fix our nation’s broken politics.” There is a lot wrong with American politics today, but the lack of genuine debate about substantive policy issues and, relatedly, Congress’s inability or refusal to harness the heat of political passion to pass new laws jump to mind. In theory, the Senate filibuster is supposed to promote deliberation and problem-solving, but in practice, the filibuster does neither: In today’s hyper-partisan environment, it stands as an insurmountable roadblock for most consequential pieces of legislation. Congress fails to tackle the biggest issues of the day, voters grow frustrated, and the tenor of our politics gets worse and worse. Hogan tells Marylanders he wants productive dialogue and constructive action; for now the filibuster gives us neither.

So, what might this middle path on filibuster reform that could promise healthier politics and a more productive Congress look like? Governor Hogan should back the following proposal: Reform the filibuster so that a bill can still pass even if it cannot clear the 60-vote supermajority threshold, but only if the bill can gain a simple majority twice — once in each of two successive Congresses with an election falling in between. If a bill can clear 60 votes, it could still pass immediately.

This middle path between the status quo and wholesale repeal of the filibuster should appeal to Hogan for two reasons: First, it would incentivize more productive, substantive debate on policy proposals among politicians and citizens. In other words, it would refocus political debate on concrete policy ideas. If a big-ticket bill has already obtained simple majority support, it will have a real chance of passage after the next election. Voters will be incentivized to ask candidates what they think of the bill and how they’d vote on it should they be elected. The result would be to give voters a better sense of what the stakes of the election actually are and where the candidates come down. This would help focus campaigns and crystallize issues. It would clarify the terms of our political and policy disagreements.

Second, even during this time of strong partisan polarization, this proposal would empower Congress to get big stuff done. The country is evenly split between the two parties. Neither can expect a congressional supermajority. When that reality collides with the growing demands for partisan purity in today’s politics, a 60-vote consensus in the Senate becomes vanishingly rare. 50 is far more doable, but fully abolishing the filibuster risks swinging the pendulum too far the other direction. By inserting an election before any such simple-majority-backed bill cleared the Senate — a built-in cooling-off period — this reform would give everyone time to think through what each party has to offer. In other words, this filibuster reform proposal would pair productivity with prudence, results with reflection.

Hogan should back this filibuster reform. Fighting for a considered middle ground might not only help him get to the Senate, but also to achieve real results for Marylanders once he’s there.

Thomas Harvey and Thomas Koenig are recent graduates of Harvard Law School. Follow them on X @Tom_Harvey94 and @thomaskoenig98.