So at least personally I do think it is pretty okay to have highly random or frustrating game components, and I think they are effective in this case! Making a filibuster be annoying because, well, filibustering is annoying, makes a lot of sense to me.
The main thing that I personally am looking for in games is a certain sort of clarity, I suppose--what are the game elements trying to do or say? In this case, the message is, at least to me, unclear--it seems like the Mutualist party is just doomed to fail, which is a fine message, but the game mechanics don't make that message particularly clear (or any other message).
Still, I think an important thing to note is part of the lack of clarity may be due to bugs! I'm pretty sure I never saw a single vote change in any filibuster I did, despite playing through the game twice. Of course, I was not always paying attention to the screen, so I could have missed it. But I'm pretty sure at least in my first playthrough I did watch quite closely and nothing ever happened.