Ftr that was a more of a moral musing, not a suggestion that the democrats give filibuster rights to any particular caucus or raise the delegate threshold.
And I was building off the musing with my own musing on granting such a veto or an effective veto to any group, not trying to FACT CHECK or anything. The Party has a history with it, they actually implemented it. And the funny thing is that it was originally done to try and increase party unity by making it so the South couldn't impose a nominee on the North anymore. Martin Van Buren was the only person, Jackson believed, that could win 2/3rds of the party, so he added the rule. It then spent most of the next century breaking the party. They were initially saved mostly by the incoherence of the opposition (and the South's relative power being enough) until the Republican Party solidified into existence and then stomped them for decades before FDR came along.
edit: I should note that the 2/3rds requirement didn't just enhance the power of the South, they were just the most typical group to use it. It also affected the party on things like the currency question and others because as long as some group could muster up enough support, or build a coalition that in total was over a third of the party they could block another coalition with 65% of the Party. Sometimes they could stampede the convention for the front-runner like Cleveland and Bryan did, and other times instead they descended into 50-100 ballots until they nominated somebody like a random ass judge from New York or Senator from New Hampshire that nobody ever heard of because no group would break from the other candidates until a nobody was brought forward.
The Republicans comparatively only required a majority, so while they had more often multiple ballots, they typically were fewer (i.e. two to five) because a candidate just needed to get over. If a candidate got close (say 45-49%) often the others would concede as only a few delegates needed to switch. Democrats had a whole extra 16% of the party that needed to.
The whole thing came to a head in 1924 when the Democrats needed 103 ballots to finally pick a nominee and FDR watched the whole thing appalled considering the party had already needed 44 ballots in 1920 (when FDR was nominated for VP) and 46 in 1912:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/1924-the-craziest-convention-in-us-history-213708https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_ConventionJohn W. Davis, the compromise in 1924, only got 29% of the vote and the party in general got smashed because nobody wanted to associate with the other wings of the party, let alone the nominee.
