Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) will lose even more votes when a third vote is held on whether to make him the next speaker of the House. Jordan whiffed in his second attempt on Wednesday when he received one vote fewer than on the first ballot on Tuesday. He was more
They literally can’t until they successfully vote for a new Speaker. Our entire system of government relies on the elected officials doing their job and constituents holding them to that.
But there’s an entire party with talking points that the government in general just doesn’t work for 50 years, so now we’re at the point where people that grew up hearing that all the time, and being elected based on that theory, have to not do their job to prove it true.
The issue is that with a FPTP voting system where it inevitably results in two major parties, just a handful of politicians can grind everything to a halt. This was inevitable and easily predicted, but the GOP has a knack for not only ignoring but actively trying to insist reality isn’t happening so they let it get to the point where a handful of MAGATS can hold the entire country hostage.
This isn’t necessarily the fault of FPTP. If anything, proper parliaments are generally even more unstable, since a governing coalition involves a lot more distinct interests cooperating. The last Israeli government, for instance, collapsed after a single member abandoned the coalition. You also have situations where one of the coalition parties withdraws.
The primary difference between Congress and parliaments is at what point the coalitions form. In modern parliaments, many different ideological groups all run their own independent elections to gain seats in parliament, and then complex negotiations occur to form a majority coalition that establishes the government and opposition groups. In Congress, that coalition building happens before elections ever occur. You still have a bunch of distinct ideological groups, but they’ve already sorted themselves into two broad coalitions, the Democrats and the Republicans. That’s why each party has a lot more ideological diversity within it than European parties.
What’s been so interesting about this is that it’s essentially Congress devolving into a parliament, which is fun for political nerds and for people who enjoy watching Republicans suffer.
It always frustrates me when people project assumptions from more parliamentary systems onto the US. They assume that Democrats and Republicans are uniform, when many smaller factions exist. Those smaller groups can grow in number and power, influencing the party line. Neoliberalism has become less of a norm in the Democratic party while limited social democracy gains ground. Fascism dominates the Republican party as neoconservatives lost ground.
The president usually rules for the party, bending their stated opinions to fit the party line. Bush Sr. called Reagan’s fiscal policy “voodoo economics,” but still tried to stick with what worked for Reagan when elected. Their actual views shine through more when they have too make tougher decisions where the party consensus isn’t strong enough. Trump was unique in how he molded Republicans to fit his image, but even he followed the party line when they resisted his more outrageous ideas.
I don’t like the two party system, but it’s not as damning as people would think. I hate the ways corruption has been legalized, but even countries with stricter laws get ruled by shady interests. Better systems help, but they’re not foolproof.
Not without a speaker. The speaker is the one that brings things to the floor to be voted on. That’s why it has never happened before. Everyone understood the extreme consequences of not having a speaker.
They actually can’t. Afair they literally aren’t allowed to vote on anything substantive until they have a speaker. Of course, that suits most of the GOP just fine.
they’re still doing this bullshit? can’t they vote on something useful?
They literally can’t until they successfully vote for a new Speaker. Our entire system of government relies on the elected officials doing their job and constituents holding them to that.
But there’s an entire party with talking points that the government in general just doesn’t work for 50 years, so now we’re at the point where people that grew up hearing that all the time, and being elected based on that theory, have to not do their job to prove it true.
The issue is that with a FPTP voting system where it inevitably results in two major parties, just a handful of politicians can grind everything to a halt. This was inevitable and easily predicted, but the GOP has a knack for not only ignoring but actively trying to insist reality isn’t happening so they let it get to the point where a handful of MAGATS can hold the entire country hostage.
This isn’t necessarily the fault of FPTP. If anything, proper parliaments are generally even more unstable, since a governing coalition involves a lot more distinct interests cooperating. The last Israeli government, for instance, collapsed after a single member abandoned the coalition. You also have situations where one of the coalition parties withdraws.
The primary difference between Congress and parliaments is at what point the coalitions form. In modern parliaments, many different ideological groups all run their own independent elections to gain seats in parliament, and then complex negotiations occur to form a majority coalition that establishes the government and opposition groups. In Congress, that coalition building happens before elections ever occur. You still have a bunch of distinct ideological groups, but they’ve already sorted themselves into two broad coalitions, the Democrats and the Republicans. That’s why each party has a lot more ideological diversity within it than European parties.
What’s been so interesting about this is that it’s essentially Congress devolving into a parliament, which is fun for political nerds and for people who enjoy watching Republicans suffer.
It always frustrates me when people project assumptions from more parliamentary systems onto the US. They assume that Democrats and Republicans are uniform, when many smaller factions exist. Those smaller groups can grow in number and power, influencing the party line. Neoliberalism has become less of a norm in the Democratic party while limited social democracy gains ground. Fascism dominates the Republican party as neoconservatives lost ground.
The president usually rules for the party, bending their stated opinions to fit the party line. Bush Sr. called Reagan’s fiscal policy “voodoo economics,” but still tried to stick with what worked for Reagan when elected. Their actual views shine through more when they have too make tougher decisions where the party consensus isn’t strong enough. Trump was unique in how he molded Republicans to fit his image, but even he followed the party line when they resisted his more outrageous ideas.
I don’t like the two party system, but it’s not as damning as people would think. I hate the ways corruption has been legalized, but even countries with stricter laws get ruled by shady interests. Better systems help, but they’re not foolproof.
No, they can’t.
They’re the General Obstruction Party
Their entire purpose is to keep the government from doing anything useful
Not without a speaker. The speaker is the one that brings things to the floor to be voted on. That’s why it has never happened before. Everyone understood the extreme consequences of not having a speaker.
They actually can’t. Afair they literally aren’t allowed to vote on anything substantive until they have a speaker. Of course, that suits most of the GOP just fine.
That’s not necessarily true, but is the premise they’re currently operating under.
The truth is, it isn’t actually spelled out exactly what powers the interim speaker has
Yeah, as per the last update, he can preside over appointment of a real speaker, he can send everyone on vacation and he immediately appointed himself emperor of offices