Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset5

like 0

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like)." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century...." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN ." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\"." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement.", ">\n\nParty is fine. This will be especially obvious if Desantis becomes Republican nominee in 2024." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement.", ">\n\nParty is fine. This will be especially obvious if Desantis becomes Republican nominee in 2024.", ">\n\nParty is fine ?\nReally? So where was the November Red wave?" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement.", ">\n\nParty is fine. This will be especially obvious if Desantis becomes Republican nominee in 2024.", ">\n\nParty is fine ?\nReally? So where was the November Red wave?", ">\n\nYes the party is fine What are you talking about ? Republicans took the house lol. Like congratulations the democrats didn’t lose as bad as they thought they would XD. What propaganda is this that has convinced people that the midterms were somehow a Democratic Party victory lmao" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement.", ">\n\nParty is fine. This will be especially obvious if Desantis becomes Republican nominee in 2024.", ">\n\nParty is fine ?\nReally? So where was the November Red wave?", ">\n\nYes the party is fine What are you talking about ? Republicans took the house lol. Like congratulations the democrats didn’t lose as bad as they thought they would XD. What propaganda is this that has convinced people that the midterms were somehow a Democratic Party victory lmao", ">\n\nAmerica: whoever gets most votes wins, even if it's not 50%.\nCongress: bruh, we gonna vote until we get the result we want." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement.", ">\n\nParty is fine. This will be especially obvious if Desantis becomes Republican nominee in 2024.", ">\n\nParty is fine ?\nReally? So where was the November Red wave?", ">\n\nYes the party is fine What are you talking about ? Republicans took the house lol. Like congratulations the democrats didn’t lose as bad as they thought they would XD. What propaganda is this that has convinced people that the midterms were somehow a Democratic Party victory lmao", ">\n\nAmerica: whoever gets most votes wins, even if it's not 50%.\nCongress: bruh, we gonna vote until we get the result we want.", ">\n\nI’m new here on Reddit can anyone please send me karma" ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement.", ">\n\nParty is fine. This will be especially obvious if Desantis becomes Republican nominee in 2024.", ">\n\nParty is fine ?\nReally? So where was the November Red wave?", ">\n\nYes the party is fine What are you talking about ? Republicans took the house lol. Like congratulations the democrats didn’t lose as bad as they thought they would XD. What propaganda is this that has convinced people that the midterms were somehow a Democratic Party victory lmao", ">\n\nAmerica: whoever gets most votes wins, even if it's not 50%.\nCongress: bruh, we gonna vote until we get the result we want.", ">\n\nI’m new here on Reddit can anyone please send me karma", ">\n\nMore important, is this McCarthy a good choice? I'm not American so I know nothing about the US politics except what's said on Reddit, and I've never heard from him besides today." ]

[ "/u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nPretty much every other democracy in the world does this except the US - it's called \"Forming a Government\" when you read about it in the news. It's only the US that doesn't do it often because we're ruled by two parties. What you saw was the closest we've had to 3rd parties in a long time - a group of 20 representatives acting as their own political block.\nIt's a very good thing for democracy if anything.", ">\n\nI would argue that it is a good thing if the system was designed for it. With multiple (5+) parties an where the coalition creator can, therefore, have multiple possible paths to forming a majority. \nWhen the only possible paths are either suddenly having the “enemy” (democrats) vote for you or caving to the more extremist parts of your party, then that fringe minority gets an uncomfortably large influence. Generally, democracies should be majority rule with some minor checks on the majority.", ">\n\nDemocracies should never be majority rule because the only benefit is that the party in power doesn't need to justify their legislation to get it passed. That is not a good thing.", ">\n\nThe threshold should be somewhere and a majority makes much more sense than a blocking minority or a super-majority. The problem you are speaking of has nothing to do with majority rule and everything to do with a two-party system of democracy. I would argue that such a system is flawed in itself and that is the reason you find problem with the most reasonable way to rule a state.", ">\n\nWhat I'm talking about is a problem with majority rule. That is an inherent feature of a two party system, but it's feature which is present in most representative democracies.\nIf a party or a coalition has a majority then their legislation doesn't need to be debated to pass. They'll still go through the motions, but the democratic process is corrupted because every vote goes their way. They know this when they are writing the bill because they have a majority and so they don't need to think about how they will justify it. They become an elected aristocracy rather than democratic representatives.", ">\n\nYou seem to have both a weird (and frankly wrong) view of both representative democracy and how to effect run an state. Because of this, I’ll give you two points to show why majority rule isn’t a flaw of the democratic system.\n\n\nMajority rule is necessarily opposite of minority rule. The less power the majority has to rule, the more power the remaining minority gets by default. This can easily be seen with the unanimity votes in the EU where a minority such as usually Hungary or the Netherlands has a hugely disproportionate power compared to their size. While everyone agrees that some things need to take the minority into account, and some legislation therefore needs super-majorities in a lot of countries, each such extra limit on the rule of the majority brings you more minority rule and, therefore, less democracy. This can also easily be seen when probably the most democratic votes, referendums, only need a simple majority.\n\n\nThere needs to be a compromise between debate and efficiency. Generally, FPTP elections generate efficiency at the cost of debate/transparency as a single party wins a majority and any needed legislation only needs to be debated within the party. There, therefore, usually needs to be other checks and balances on power. Multi-party systems are theoretically less efficient but then the members who form a coalition can be checks and balances on the lead party of the coalition. \n\n\nIf we, say, created a second legislative body which is disproportionately helped by minority votes, then that could work as another stopgap for the majority of the first legislative body because they either need to include more parties or have debate with non-coalition parties. Because of this, debate would increase but efficiency would be further reduced. There is no golden answer to where this should be placed.\nAlso just something to note, your term “elected aristocracy” is so meaningless it isn’t funny. The majority in democracies are meant to govern a bit like an “aristocracy” in the years between the elections, but they need to govern in the interest of the people if they want to keep power. They are, therefore, by definition not an aristocracy and nothing like one.", ">\n\nI'm now not sure you understand what majority rule means. Majority rule and minority rule aren't opposite. It's a description of whether a party or coalition has enough seats in government to overrule the remaining members.\nSo most of what you are talking about makes no sense. Netherlands and Hungary aren't minority rulers of the EU. You either have majority rule or minority rule in government, not both. \nYour point 2 makes some sense in that it is a common argument in favour of majority government, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It makes governance easier, but there is no evidence to suggest it is more efficient unless you consider passing legislation efficiency regardless of the effect that legislation has on society. It's an excuse that people in government use to justify their abuse of the democratic process.", ">\n\nYou have to think of it slightly differently. In this setting, it does seem a bit ridiculous. While holding out from voting for McCarthy seems insignificant, imagine a hypothetical. Let's they they were voting on a government who were about to strip everyone - except white males over 30 - from every single one of their rights. Then you would want those 15 people to hold out, right? Those 15 holdouts would be considered heroes (in that instance). \nSome of these people really dislike McCarthy. Imagine having to go on TV and vote for the one person you really hate, someone you believe is going to completely mess things up, just because you were expected to \"toe the line.\" You would then want your individuality. \nIn the end, McCarthy gave up quite a bit. Of course, this is just a small fraction - items that members have repeated to the press - they don't offer up a bulleted list of what he conceeded or agreed to. For example, they changed the motion to vacate to a single person - meaning 1 person can motion to remove McCarthy from the speaker. He agreed not to back any Republican party challengers, making it easier for those already in power to retain it. Gave these 15 people positions on powerful committees. \nAgreed to require any increases to the debt ceiling to be accompanied by spending cuts. Agreed to bring bills that group wants to see, such as border security, tern limits, and balanced budget amendments. Etc. \nIn this instance, it didn't help that some of the holdouts were people many don't hold in high regard. While it seemed like a circus that didn't go anywhere since the end result was the same, going round after round allowed them to negotiate - and get - a lot of things they wanted.", ">\n\n!Delta.\nI will look more into what the compromises were after the 15th vote.\nThough I don't particularly care for the freedom caucus and their faux patriotism....I guess it probably matters to a certain group of Americans.\nI still fear though....that this situation may embolden the freedom caucus to hold-up congress again.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/averagelyimpressive (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session is more important than crafting a functioning, operable session?\nOr rather, a polished car is more important than a running one? \nIf that's your argument, I'm not really sure how it can be changed.", ">\n\n\nSo presenting artifical optics of a cohesive legislative session are more important than a functional, operating session?\n\nThat's not what they said. They said that the optics have non-zero value.", ">\n\nHe was arguing that LOOKING good was more important than making good policy decisions.\nAny reasonable person should value doing good above looking good.", ">\n\nNo, he was arguing that the statement \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public\" was incorrect. Saying \"it's not true that it doesn't matter\" is different from saying \"it matters more than something else\".", ">\n\nGlad to see others understand the English language.\nI never said that optics matter more than function.\nWhat I was saying was the appearance of dysfunction is bad for a government...ergo to say that \"how things look don't matter\" is simply NOT TRUE when it comes to politics", ">\n\nRegarding your second point: I would argue that the issue is holding 15 votes in the span of just a few days.\nWhile I don't like what those ~20 Republicans were fighting for, it is nevertheless important that they don't just fall in line. So what they did wasn't wrong, even if we are focusing appearances. \nHowever, what looked bad was having vote after vote after vote. Those triggering the votes clearly weren't interested in ideological debate, in big political ideas. What they were trying to do is simply win the game they're used to playing by getting the votes they needed quick and dirty. So if anyone is to be blamed here, it is the establishment GOP rather than the even-further-right-wing group.\nWould you agree with that?", ">\n\nAre you saying that the 200 establishment Republicans + Matt Gates ...were more to blame for the delay than the \"freedom caucus\" ?", ">\n\nNot about the delay but about the appearance.\nThey knew they didn't have the votes and they had to negotiate. So far, so good; politics should be about negotiation.\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying. What they should have done is wait for a few days, have some proper conversations, then go for another vote. If necessary, repeat the process. Opting for vote after vote after vote is why the situation looked so bad. \nHence my question. Your second point was about appearances; would you agree that the establishment GOP is the reason that became a problem?", ">\n\n!Delta.\nYour proposal sounds more reasonable.\nYea...if they actually took more time to debate after each vote rather than just repeatedly voting exactly the same each day. ....that would have definitely looked better and come off as more sincere .\n\nHowever, by pushing five votes a day, they made it clear the focus of negotiation was more about personal gains and, arguably, political bullying.\n\nExactly ! Because by pushing for 5 votes each day.. all they did was exaggerate the ridiculousness of it all. By the 14th vote members were almost ready to lay physical blows...and that was caught on television !\nIf it had been done the way you suggest, I myself probably wouldn't feel so unimpressed by it all.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/xtfftc (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak\n\nSure. And a dictatorship is strong.... The house is constantly divided. Just because we often experience a concrete narrow majority as to not create such issues like we just saw in this vote, doesn't at all present forth the idea of \"working together\". \nPeople have this weird idea of majoritarianism. That 52% is somehow miles ahead and better than 48%. \nIf 15 votes for speaker is \"embarrassing\", it's embarassing for all members regardless of party. McCarthy or Jefferies could have been elected Speaker. If McCarthy's loses were embarrassing, so were Jefferies. But that's all from a perspective as if \"the House\" is meant to be a monolith. Which they certainly aren't and shouldn't be perceived as such. \nI'd argue the problem is more so in the authority granted to such Speaker. That this sole position holds authority over the entire House. And it's really partisanship that has held such up to being perceived as \"respectable\" when it's the very opposite. \nThe second people disobey the partisan demand to \"step in line\", partisans get upset. The history of the house is in scrict partisan adherence, not \"working together\" to come to some unified leader. You're giving way too much credit to anything before this occured. \nWhat's \"embarassing\" is the expected partisan adherence. That it's to be deemed \"embarassing\" if people try and challenge such. None of this has to do with the House \"coming together\". It's pure partisanship. \nThat's why there is no narrative against Democrats for not voting for McCarthy. Or even any really focus of Jefferies losing 14 times in a row as well. The focus is on the \"detractors\", and the others not being able to \"hold them in line\".", ">\n\nComplaints like these are what leads to totalitarian governments. People get so tired of 'democracy not working' that they vote in a strongman who can 'take action'.", ">\n\n\"One party is dysfunctional and can't get their act together, even for the most basic tasks.\"\n\"Yep. Time for a dictatorship.\"\nNo. That's not how it works.", ">\n\nExplain to me what is wrong with the speaker vote.", ">\n\nExplain to you what's wrong with the most basic task taking several days even though there were months to prepare for it?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nI was going to respond to you about how you're wrong, but then I realized I have no idea why you're saying this to me. What does this have to do with my response?", ">\n\n??? The elextion of the speaker of the house was never meant to be \"the most basic task.\"\nRegardless of how you feel about their politics, the holdouts successfully got concession that they and presumably their constitutions wanted.\nTheir will a vote on term limits for senators and congressmen now. Something I have heard a lot of support for on this website.", ">\n\nNo president keeps the house in the midterms. If Biden lost the Senate as well, a moderate republican from California wouldn't be a problem. After being fucked over by pelosi for so long the republicans are looking for a strong far right leader to balance out wtf ever is going wrong with the rest of the government.", ">\n\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has added 20+ trillion in debt over the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.\nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that passes 1.7 trillion 4k page bills loaded with earmarks with no debate or time for members to review them. \nWhat's embarrassing is a congress that has its own sexual harassment slush fund paid for by the Treasury department.\nWhat's embarrassing is congress had delegate it's legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.\nWhat's embarrassing is no term limits.\nWhat's embarrassing is voting for the farm bill also votes for the war in Yemen\nWhat's embarrassing are the lobbyist who run congress.\nWhat's embarrassing is how rich congressman get. \nWhat's embarrassing is congress buying individual stocks\nWhat's embarrassing is a 20% congress approval rating\nWhat's embarrassing is a system that gives God like power to the speaker of the house over 434 members that represent over 329 million people.\nCongress is broken it's the most reprehensible government entity in America. So what if there is finally some debate about how the house should run. Who cares if a vote takes a few days. People from all political backgrounds recognize that congress needs to be fixed. I think this is at least a start.", ">\n\n\nI have seen a lot of conservatives use the logic that the constant disagreement was emblematic of American \"individualism\" and should be taken as something to be proud of.\n\nYes, it is, since our foundation we have had individuals fight against each other. From remaining a colony under british rule to slavery abolishment (the war anyone) to women's voting rights to the old green deal to dropping the bomb on Japan to syphilis experiments on black people to Jim crow to the war on drugs and terror... hell taxes haven't even been decided yet. Aren't non conservatives all for \"democracy\"? Well, welcome to democracy, where various groups fight for their own best interests... that's American. That's individualism. That's the best system humanity has ever had yet. \n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\n\nCorrect, assuming that they don't violate human rights. Correct. \n\nI disagree on both points.\n\nYour disagreement, like it or not, seems to only lead to an inferior system of authoritarianism and tyranny. How exactly do you think e should deal with dissent and corruption? \n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional. A house divided, is weak. There has to be a point where people are willing to put aside their differences and work together. What I saw this week was beyond individualism. It was selfish narcissism.\n\nSo, what? We should only care about groups? Well, what about the white people problems? What about black people? What about disabled people? Now, how about white vs black disabled people problems... how about female black disabled Havard grad problems vs white able bodied poor destitute peoples problems. The group is never an accurate way of dealing with things. Too many points of suffering or oppression intersect... so much so that the smallest and most unheard minority is the... da da da dummmm ... the individual. We are not bees. We aren't a hive mind. Those people caring about groups seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to make the reality easier to deal with because they don't have to worry about so many variables. Just group them up, thrust your prejudice onto them so as to create stereotypes, and now you have far less to contend with. Oh? Youre black? You must have been a victim of racism here some systemic racism - in your favor - to counter balance that... yet this black person just came over from Ghana, never experienced racism, and his ancestors sold defeated black tribes into slavery. But, the group is so important. \nThis disagreement is what's making it non functional? Define functional? Is it functional when they have a less than 23% approval rating by EVERYONE? Is it functional when neither side is happy? Is it functional when term after term literally nothing changes? You need to give serious thought to whether you're upset that it's \"not functional\" or upset that the veneer/asthetic of the Status quo is being removed? Indeed a house divided can be weak... but it ought to be weak when radical change is necessary. Do you want the gov to be an impregnable strongman impervious to the people's demands for change and an end to corruption? Speaking of which, being a house unified in corruption, be that a strong or weak house, is not a good thing. So, let's not think that weakness is inherently bad. \nPut aside the differences or its narcissistic? Interesting. So, when the union refused to allow slavery that was bad? When Jim crow was being overturned that's bad? When people fought to have the syphilis experiments stopped that's bad? When people fight against the murder of children in the womb that's bad? When people fight to preserve their \"bodily autonomy\" for the \"right\" to abortion that's bad? When people want to send actual billions of dollars to Ukraine (🤢); fighting that because we have our own problems is bad? No, no, this is democracy. We fight for our own best interests... that's how this works and ought to work. \n\nA good example of this is marriage. I don't think a marriage where the husband and wife constantly argue over every decision, is a healthy relationship. By most metrics, this behavior would be called toxic.\n\nThis is a dreadful analogy. A husband and wife Chose, They Selected, each other. I don't choose to be born in America and I don't choose to keep cancerous California in the union. But they are here regardless, I'm stuck with them. We must contend with each other. Not to mention... it's easy to deal with 2 people and their issues... but we have Three Hundred Million plus people in this country. You expect us all to just \"get a long\"? That's preposterous.\nLet us disabuse ourselves of the notions that we were more \"civil\" in the past. Even presidential debates had insults hurled Trump style to each other. \n\nI also disagree on the point of \"it doesn't matter how it looks.\"\n\nIt doesn't.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nHow? What external threat is there to the United States of America, here? None. No one opposes us. The only actual threats we have are internal; and you want us to play nice with internal threats and not get any of this corruption out of here?\n\nI point again to the comparison of marriage. A couple that is seen constantly arguing, is easily exploitable by would-be home-wreckers.\n\nAgain, name one external threat to the United States of America on our home turf? \n\nBut maybe I am seeing this wrong.\n\nI believe so, concretely, yes. But maybe you'll show me something.", ">\n\nRather than look at the fifteen votes. Look at what was achieved. \nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\nAn actual discussion of border control. \nI am sure there are others but these are the important ones to me. \nThe gains by running it as a democracy of representatives of the people with an equal vote rather than a political party that allows no dissenters is what was intended for the people and I can't believe that mostly democrats think it was stupid or a terrible thing to do.", ">\n\n\nTerm limits to be voted on by congress. \n\nYou think that'll pass? \n\nRepairs to our unreal budget situation with no more earmarks and unreadable documents that need to be approved that day.\n\nYou think that'll happen?\n\nAn actual discussion of border control. \n\nYou think that'll happen?\nLike seriously, these people have no fucking backbone and have proven time and time again they have 0 interest in actually helping the American people. Their arm had to be twisted backwards to even get those concessions.", ">\n\nIf these dont happen one of the items not mentioned in my comment was the Speaker can be immediately sent to a recall vote by one member of the house. \nWill term limits pass? No way. But they finally get to tell the people they aren't listening to what the people are demanding. 40 years in congress amassing power needs to stop.", ">\n\nI don't know why people are so hung up on term limits. All it will produce are less experienced representatives with a lower price tag for lobbyists. It's like trying to outlaw deficits, a lazy \"fix\" that makes everything much worst. \nIf you don't want people to stay in Congress, vote them out. If you want to balance the budget, balance it.", ">\n\nPeople vote them to stay in Congress due to their power. Something they were never intended to have and happily abuse often. Too many Warrens have come through, making millions standing up for the people. Too many times somebody gets in on the wrong pretense and stays a lifetime. Even Santos will be there in thirty years. Its why he lied to get in. We could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.", ">\n\nI don't get what you mean \"never intended to have\"? It's impossible to prevent more senior legislators from getting power, when they get power trough experience, relationships and history in Congress. If people don't like their representatives, they can change them. If they don't, maybe it's because they want them. \n\nWe could do the names for an hour but its time to get a more representative group in congress.\n\nThen vote better? That's the whole point of voting. Tying your own hands is not going to help you.", ">\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent? Lets look at the State of Massachusetts and their senators. \nWarren, the first Native American to graduate from Harvard. \nMarkey 40 years in congress. Google what has Ed Markey done? Not much. \nI could do this for many in Congress. But the point is, once you are in. The voters stop caring no matter how detached the person ends up being.", ">\n\n\nDid you vote for the incumbent?\n\nFor Congress and state leg, yes. For most city and county positions yes. For most state positions no.\nMy city instituted term limits for the city council (city of 1.5 million) a while back, and ten years later we rolled it back because it was terrible. Anyone with experience was gone, and special interests took over. This is what happens everywhere that term limits for legislative bodies are introduced.\nI'm sorry you don't like your incumbents, but you're acting like a sore loser. Obviously most of your fellow voters simply don't agree with you. The answer to that is to live with it, not change the rules to the detriment of the country just so you can get rid of a few people you don't like (who, let's face it, would probably be replaced by other people you don't like).", ">\n\nOk, so you don't understand the argument at all. I missed that in your statements until you resorted to insults as most useless people do.", ">\n\nYour entire complaint is that you don't like a couple of people who currently represent you. It's not my fault your arguments are terrible.\nAlso, pay more attention to usernames if you're going to take and make things personal. You got me confused with someone else.", ">\n\nI would say that the problem in general with the congress is that they are completely divided, and they are already unproductive. They already have to resort to coercive and tricky measures to literally do the most simple things. If 90% of Americans agree on legislation, it will only be used as leverage to force completely unrelated legislation that can’t pass via compromise. \nIn this scenario, Republicans, and the democrats before them, do the country a favor by demonstrating precisely how broken they are. Where I am in Japan, politics is conducted behind the scenes, debate does not exist, and generally voters are apathetic. At a surface glance things seem great, but things are a shit show when it counts. Appearances are everything here and it does the country no favors. \nThe congress as a whole needs to work through its disfunction and right now I would say we are a bit past defending appearances at this point.", ">\n\nIt really depends on your priorities but I think it’s better for the country for the political parties to not simply fall in line for their leadership. To me a select few of the 20ish members who held out did so for attention, but most of them made promises to their constituents that they would fight for certain changes in the House and meant it. Should they have simply disregarded those promises and fell in line for the sake of optics? And what would those members face when they went back home, how would their constituents feel if they went back on their promises? I remember a lot of Democrats winning House seats recently who promised to disrupt the system and bring change, but when reality set in Nancy Pelosi said to jump and they said “how high?”. Again maybe we have different priorities but I think the country would be a better place if both major political parties had a healthy level of infighting and rigorous debate like we saw this week.", ">\n\nRigorous debate yes. Infighting that gridlocks the entire process....not so much.", ">\n\nI’ll grant that the constant failed votes gives the perception of gridlock but I don’t think it’s a fair characterization of the entire process. In those five days there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes to secure the necessary votes, and for me I don’t think five days is really a huge deal to hammer it out. Again there were certain bad actors, like Gaetz and Boebert, who I feel were opposed to any kind of solution. But the perception of gridlock created by the votes is somewhat misleading since there was a contingency actively negotiating with leadership on a deal throughout the process.", ">\n\nNegotiations behind the scenes and repeated failed votes are not the same thing.\nConsider a scenario where a deciding fraction of house members wanted x, y, z, and further wanted to be seen fighting for those things. Consider as well that these demands are acceptable.\nIf these demands are acceptable (which can be done backroom) there can be a failed vote, a dramatic speech of demands, a successful vote, a call to unity, a reiteration of whatever goals for the session.\nSchfityteen failed votes is the hecklers' veto. It's not a negotiation, it's not concensus. It's a very very public demonstration of failure to govern.\nAnd that's the point. It's about noise and grandstanding. \nThis bodes for more ultimatum poses with the govt shutdown, a list of \"if you don't give me what i want, imma blow up the govt\". It's terrorism.", ">\n\nI think calling it terrorism is a bit of a stretch. And the reality is oftentimes representative govt is messier than the situation you laid out. There certainly was a larger point to be made to the public and their constituents regarding dissatisfaction with the way the House has been operating, and as I said there were certain members like Gaetz and Boebert who had no interest in any deal that saw McCarthy as speaker. But to paint the entire ordeal as political terrorism intent to burn the system down is unfair. Those members have a primary duty to their constituents and don’t owe Kevin McCarthy their vote on the first ballot or the fifteenth if they don’t feel their concerns have been properly addressed.", ">\n\nI get the pushback on the word terrorism.\nHowever just you wait until the debt ceiling bill. \nConsider the demands. Most of them are a distraction. But the one who can call a vote on the speaker? That's the one worth worrying about.\nOK, so consider Boebert and Goetz. Would you consider them to be the thoughtful considerate statesmen? No! They're the loud, bellicose, extreme hood ornaments. Who can and will demand outrageous things - just to grandstand and take up the media cycle.\n(They're also stalking horses for Jordan but that's an aside)\nWhen the debt ceiling vote stalls out and it progresses into a mess, a single boebert or gaetz or some other lightning rod can throw in a speaker no confidence vote to add even more mess.\nIf the gop doesn't like Mccarthy, fine. Who's better? Somebody step up. And we'll see who can run this herd of cats.", ">\n\nRegarding the provision on votes of no confidence, I think you’re right that Boebert or Gaetz could abuse it. But I also don’t have much of a problem with any member of the House raising such a vote bc if McCarthy does his job well it shouldn’t be much of a contest. And I have to hope eventually their respective constituents would grow tired of such antics, but if someone isn’t tired of either of those two yet I’m not sure it’s possible haha. \nBut I think the point OP is trying to make is less about the ramifications of the specific demands and more about the general process that took place. And in those terms I still hold that I’d rather members be willing to openly challenge their party leadership than simply follow in lock step, regardless of what their demands might be.", ">\n\nI think you're putting too much on Mccarthy. \nI don't think in the current political zeitgeist you can expect a speaker to be able to corral the incentives of \"the disruptive heckler's veto\". There's too much upside right now for somebody like a Boebert to throw a monkey wrench into the sausage.\nThe GOP includes a coalition of the outraged. Outraged about what? Everything and anything. Is there a policy or piece of legislation to address this? No? Yes? Doesn't matter! I'm very angry about the things! It's all deep state silicon valley elite globalist communism!\nA single congress critter can call a vote just to add outrage and give oxygen to the outrage, I'm very angry right now!\nIn the real situation of a debt ceiling bill, there's going to be compromise. The competing goals of the upside of achieving policy goals and the downside of shutting down the govt. It's going to be tricky for any speaker.\nNow you're asking the speaker to also handle every last one of the fringe congressmembers whose entire political role is to disrupt and outrage?\nThat's too much.", ">\n\n\nThe US is profound because as a nation, we handle a lot of our 'dirty laundry' very publicly. We have open records laws and the like.\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? How many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s? How many know that we paid slave owners for their slaves, but not the slaves themselves? How many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up, but when half this country thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave around a flag that was popularized by white supremacists after the bloodiest war in American history, you might need to question whether or not we put that dirty laundry out there in a way that matters. \n\nDisagreement in Congress is actually a VERY good thing. It means we are working out political differences where it belongs, and not taking up arms to get 'our way'. \n\nI mean, the people who were capitulated to ARE the people who'd take up arms against the United States. Madge Green said she would when addressing claims she was involved with the last coup attempt. \n\nIt also does not mean we are a 'house divided'. It means we are a healthy democracy where differences are aired openly and in appropriate chambers\n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. Even the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.", ">\n\n\nLol, this is funny. Publically how? How many Americans know some of our worst shit? How many Americans are aware that highways were disproportionately put through black neighborhoods and proper compensation denied to them? \n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many are aware that we were needlessly sterilizing Native American women until the 1970s?\n\nThe information is widely available now to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nHow many Americans are aware of the second president trying to fund an expedition to hunt mole men? Or how we were sterilizing Latin women as recently as 3 years ago? Or how the FBI had tried to make MLK kill himself? Or why Juneteenth is a holiday and what it signifies? Or the millions of people kicked off voting rolls in order to influence elections? \n\nAgain, literally all of the information is out there - if you want to look for it.\n\nOur dirty laundry isn't illegal to look up\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nExcept that in this case that division is happening WITHIN a political party that has very little daylight between its moderate and extremist wings. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \nThere is huge division in the GOP. There is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nEven the incredibly diverse Democratic party managed to unify behind a person.\n\nThe DNC - to a point. \nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.", ">\n\n\nLiterally, the information is widely available to anyone who wants to look for it.\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal. That's true for a lot of countries. If you wanna talk about a country that puts it publicly, let's talk Germany, where its shittiest moments are taught to children and it's reinforced how bad that was. If you hop over there, they'll be able to tell you the worst things their country did.\nAgain, how many random Americans know our shittiest things beyond slavery?\n\nSo you agree - it is available publicly for anyone with any interest to find, read, talk about etc.\nErgo - *We air all of our 'dirty laundry'. \n\nI disagree with how you're using that idiom.\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \nSimply having the information available isn't having a discussion. So while I agree that the information isn't illegal, nor is it particularly hard to find, I 100% don't believe that we discuss the vast majority of it publicly, which I believe is the most important part.\nThere are currently people who believe there were benevolent slave owners in America. Clearly, our dirty laundry is not being aired in public. \n\nThis is narrative - not fact. It is projection on what you want to believe and what the opposition party wants to project. \n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nThere is huge division in the GOP. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nThere is also huge division in the DNC. That is merely a characteristic of a big tent coalition of different interests. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nFirst Past the Post Voting pretty much makes (2) dominat coalitions the required outcome. Groups have to combine to get to 50% of the population to have any influence. \n\nYup. Thing is, the Republicans have a base that's incredibly passionate about voting, and is fairly homogeneous, both demographically and in how their politicians vote. \n\nThe DNC - to a point. \n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAnd so will the GOP - to a point. (and has now)\n\nThey are already behind in party unity, despite them all having nearly identical voting patterns. \n\nThis is not the issue it is painted to be.\n\nIt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been. That's their biggest strength. They're a minority party, voting in unison has been how they've maintained any semblance of power. Now when they have a SLIM majority, they start going rogue? That doesn't bode well, especially since it was shown to favor the small coalition that wanted to rock the boat. They got EVERYTHING they wanted. That will only breed more moments like this in the future.", ">\n\n\nLike I said, that's not really airing your laundry publicly, that's having it not illegal.\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nAiring one's dirty laundry is a term that describes the active discussion of embarrassing things publicly. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nBruh, they took 15 votes just to get a speaker. That's not projection, that's objective reality we can see with out eyes. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nBig disagree. Their voting patterns say otherwise. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nI mean, yeah. But only one party is a big tent. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nLiterally 100% of the Democratics voted for Hakeem Jeffries 15 times. They could not have been more unified. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\nWhat an incredibly poor take.\n\nt's being painted as an issue BECAUSE of how lock step the Republicans have historically been.\n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\nYea - selective memory.......\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.", ">\n\n\nNo, it very much is. You are explicitly protected from consequence by the government for looking for, talking about or producing materials describing this information. \nOther countries explicitly restrict this. The US does not. IT IS PUBLIC. \n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nWhat the hell do you call this? The ability to talk about all of this, publicly, on an internet forum without fear of reprisal from the government.\nThe fact people may not care about a topic does not really matter.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\nBut also, just because you don't have a better term, doesn't make an incorrect term, correct. \n\nAnd? Is there some objective requirement for showing 'solidarity' in a democratic chamber? \n\nNo, but the Democratic party isn't known for solidarity. They ACTUALLY have a big tent that spans ideologies that are incongruent with one another. \nThe Republicans however ARE known for their lockstep voting.\nThey're compared differently in different categories, because their usual behavior is different. \n\nIs it problematic when Congress doesn't have unanimous votes too? How about primaries where one candidate is not unanimous.\n\nNo. But on the other hand, the vote passed, and it WASN'T unanimous. And it was still the better outcome for Republicans.\nThe thing is, they caved to their extremist wing in order to stop the excessive votes; that ended in the way they were intended to start, with McCarthy as speaker. The ONLY difference is that instead of settling things in the back of house and showing solidarity after negotiations, the Republicans made it look like they can't handle their own party. Or more shortly, they seem to have lost their ability to compromise behind the scenes before new votes. \n\nIt is as if you don't understand the point of democratic voting. \n\nI do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a level of strategy to politics. \n\nIf only 'voting pattern' defined the entire party.......\nIt does not by the way. \n\nFor the Republicans it absolutely does. Find me a Republican who votes less than 80% in line with the party and I'll show you a congressman from 1979 or before. \n\nThe GOP? I listed in another comment many component factions that make it up - from social conservatives to libertarians.\n\nThat's like saying from cherry red to hot rod red. Those are superficial differences that don't amount to real world differences. They all want roughly the same things and want to achieve them in roughly the same way. That's NOT a big tent, that's just a coalition. \n\nI takes willful disregard of reality to not accept the GOP is a coalition just like the DNC is. 'Big Tent' merely describes the coalition of different interests.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. The Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action. \n\nAgain - if only voting defined the agreement and diviseness of a political party in general terms. I guess I should forget about the 'classical liberal' vs 'Progressives' vs 'Democratic Socialists' tensions in the DNC because they voted together on (1) issue.\n\nI mean, we were discussing that one type of vote (the 15 votes for speaker), so, yes it DOES show unity in that moment. I'm not implying that they'll be unified later, only that the actions shown SO FAR make it appear that the Republicans aren't capable of unity anymore, which, again, is their greatest strength. \n\nYea such wonderful memory. Completely forgetting the HUGE diviseness in the 2016 primaries for President. Completely forging the Never trumpers in the party after the election.\n\nOh gosh, there were differences of opinion in a PRIMARY‽\nHow about once someone took the primary? How many abstained? How many said never, and MEANT it? Because Trump abused Cruz and be still managed to sing that man's praises for 5 years. \n\nYea - selective memory.......\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nIt's being talked about because the Democrats are trying to paint a political narrative for their benefit. \n\nAbsolutely. Though the media is also enjoying it as a vaudevillian show. \n\nIt's a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.\n\nI mean, it gives insight into what the party is willing to do for the extremists in their party.", ">\n\n\nWhich is still definitionally NOT airing one's dirty laundry. \n\nSorry dude - making it public information is very much doing this whether you will admit or not.\n\nA discussion. Though to be clear, that's not even what we're doing at this point, we're talking about talkjng about them. Which is a thing we CAN do.\n\nYou do realize, in some countries talking about items on a public internet site, accessible to everyone is illegal right. Your narrative is frankly WRONG.\n\nBig tent describes multiple groups with loosely connected, and SOMETIMES CONFLICTING interests that band together anyways. \n\nWhich accurately describes the GOP. \n\nThe Republicans aren't a big tent because all of their \"disagreements\" are in speech only and never in action.\n\nReally? Do you not realize we are talking about a FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDING UP VOTING FOR A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE\nJesus dude. This entire topic is about the GOP not being unified.\n\nI remember. It's just not as relevant as when people get into office and govern. \n\nSo you are complaining the GOP is better at making compromises in thier party? Is that it. \nYou have flip-flopped around this issue. It was just a few paragraphs up you said the GOP wasn't a 'Big tent' because they voted in lockstep. \nYou really need to disengage from the propaganda machine and critically analyze the situation. Your ideas are not reality.", ">\n\nI don’t really understand what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, a house divided is weak; people should put their differences aside and work together. But that’s why a speaker got elected after all this time, people put their differences aside and compromised after making their opinion known. \nAnd you can’t compare our form of government to marriage. Marriage isn’t affecting the lives of 300+ million people. A marriage house should appear unified because their problems, in the grand scheme of things, are so much more minor to our governments. \nBy your logic, should the BLM protestors have shut their mouths so we appeared more unified as a country? Should MLK Jr not marched in the streets of Washington? Why weren’t they quiet, why didn’t they just put aside their differences and be quiet for the sake of our nation?", ">\n\nHonestly this isn't even a big deal. I guarantee you in less than a year, we'll have all forgotten about this \"historic 15 vote\" thing and will have moved on to another issue. How fast have we forgotten all the insane and shitty things Trump said and did? I can remember some, but definitely not all, and probably not the worst ones because there was so much shit going on it was probably a blip in the news. \nAnd the news is really what's been making this an issue. It's only huge because of the 24 hour, need news constantly cycles. This whole thing literally only delayed things by a few days. Remember when they held the country hostage with the debt ceiling? I know what you're thinking, \"which time?\". Optically, this looks bad, but in practice, not much is changing, even the concessions given don't really make waves, you still need a majority to kick him out if you want to oust the speaker, so it won't happen. \ntldr: this is just normal, american politics at play, it looks embarrassing, but it's not really pushing any needles", ">\n\nI'm guessing you're pretty young. None of this is normal at all, especially the Trump stuff. And a speaker vote hasn't gone like this in well over a century....", ">\n\nIt is, everyone said the EXACT same things when the government \"shutdown\". It is a chicken little the sky is falling.", ">\n\nWhen that happens, which is unreasonably often, the government workers can get fucked at that time. So, that sucks. But the news always paints it as the country is vulnerable and in trouble which is silly.", ">\n\nI mean, it is really bad for the country. Not like immediately, but it causes serious problems that take time to clean up.\nNow refusing to raise the debt ceiling? That’s sky is falling territory. If they genuinely do that we’d have a worldwide recession extremely quickly.", ">\n\nRight. Which is why those assholes use it for leverage constantly. It's the one time everyone in congress really tries get what they want THEN use it as an example of others voting for shitty legislation. And one certain side falls for it everytime.", ">\n\nDemocrats were in lockstep for political reasons not because they all saw Jeffries as the absolute best candidate. Popcorn in the public sessions was disrespectful to the process and Jeffries was way out of line in his talking points. Hardline, disrespectful and no signal that they intend to compromise or work with Republicans\nA minority of Republicans who wish to see changes of consequence in how the House is run leveraged the moment to move the needle back towards “regular order” in the house. They did us a great favor if they succeeded in stopping the use of omnibus funding developed in the dark. \nThe televised process looked pedantic but the back room deals will be good for our Republic.\nWhat you call divided I call overdue debate. The problems facing our nation deserve an honest debate", ">\n\nSo seeing dissent in the government from the broken, corrupt two-party system makes you uncomfortable? How sad. You seem to not realize that we need more dissent against the two-party system. It’s the only way it will end.", ">\n\nI don’t see how this is so embarrassing. It was resolved after literally two days, and the “historic” 15 rounds of voting didn’t even come close to the 60 or so rounds of voting it took last time something like this occurred, not does it come close to the all-time record of 136 rounds it took in 1856. If it had taken a considerable amount of time I could see calling it that, but to be frank if people are going to cry “dysfunction” and “embarrassment” the moment a substantial disagreement occurs in a representative democracy, they should stop praising representative democracy. This type of government is literally built around debating things and coming to compromises. That’s what happened here.\nEdit: I got some numbers and facts wrong. It’s been 4 days not two, and the record is 133. The 60 rounds where in 1860, not “the last time this occurred”. My bad on not doing my due diligence but none of this really changes my outlook or points", ">\n\n\nOthers say \"it doesn't matter what it looks like to the general public, all that matters is that we get it right\"\nI disagree on both points.\n\nSo you believe the better alternative would have been a poor choice in order to project an image of unity?\nWhy even bother having a vote then? Wouldn't an appointment from the ruling regime project a stronger image of unity?", ">\n\nFirst, most people have no clue this was even happening. And they still won’t. Second, why shouldn’t congress get to pick their leader? If you are following it, you’d know the freedom caucus felt McCarthy lied to them, laughed them out of chambers, and was generally not a good leader. He already lost in 2015 for the same reason. He’s not owed a speakership. \nThis is actually how a democratic republic works. Nothing embarrassing.", ">\n\nThe fact that the mainstream media is reporting that a small handful of republicans are obstructing the speaker election and not talking about why should tell you everything you need to know: If you knew what they were demanding to fall in line you'd agree with it, so they can't talk about that but still want a reason to bash republicans.\nOver the past decade, power has been aggregated into house leadership that uses the rest of their party as a rubber stamp. Bills aren't debated and amended by our representatives the way they used to be. That's what we should be embarrassed about and that's what we're underserved by. Falling in line with leadership for two more years of the status quo is a good thing for party leadership, not a good thing for the people.", ">\n\nUh, mainstream media are definitely reporting on the changes to the House rules package negotiated by the holdouts. What are you even talking about? It’s all over the news, especially the bringing down of the motion-to-vacate-the-chair threshold from 5 Members to 1 Member.\nThis is pulled directly from the current top article on the NYT homepage:\n\nMr. McCarthy agreed to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote at any time to oust the speaker, a rule that he had previously refused to accept, regarding it as tantamount to signing the death warrant for his speakership in advance.\nAlso part of the proposal, Republicans familiar with it said, was a commitment by the leader to give the ultraconservative faction approval over a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee, which controls what legislation reaches the floor and how it is debated. He also agreed to open government spending bills to a freewheeling debate in which any lawmaker could force votes on proposed changes.", ">\n\nThere are always closely contested elections, whether they are for a presidential candidate, a new pope, or the House Speaker. If the issues are intractable enough, they may lead to extended decision processes. At no point in history has this been a serious problem. \nThis election for Speaker was over serious issues. Kevin McCarthy has a history of collaborating with the single-party bureaucracy over his own constituency. The most recent and egregious example was the corrupt $1.7Trillion omnibus bill and greenlighting the additional debt needed. \n90% of Republican voters want McCarthy replaced. He has held on to the speakership through raw organization power. The twenty congressmen who opposed him were the only members of Congress representing their constituency. It would have been better if they had held out for longer.", ">\n\nIn 1980 Reagan won his election in a landslide. He won favor with blue-collar workers/social- conservatives, warhawks concerned with the USSR, and fiscal libertarians who favored things like free trade and low taxes. He called this the \"Three-Legged Stool\" of the GOP.\nIt is tough to balance a coalition like this. What is good for the free-traders might not be good for the blue-collar guy. What pleases the warhawk might upset the social conservatives.\nThe holdouts wanted to reform aspects of the government that don't favor the working man. They wanted freedom caucus members on boards like energy and commerce. They wanted a rule that all bills had to be finished 72 hours before voting, so they could actually be read. They wanted to ban foreign entities from buying farmland and holding it as a speculative investment. They wanted to form a committee that investigates civil rights abuses by the intelligence agencies, like the FBI and NSA.\nYou feel it is embarrassing that they disagree, but this is what the GOP has always been: three distinct groups of people who have disagreements but still agree enough to form a coalition government.\nThis isn't new or novel at all. In 2015 McCarthy wanted to be speaker but didn't have votes, so he withdrew before the vote and Paul Ryan became speaker as a compromise. This time McCarthy will be speaker but hopefully will do some of the things listed above as a compromise to the freedom caucus.", ">\n\nOn your marriage point: what I’ve heard about marriage is that it’s not about the number of arguments people get themselves into, but about the willingness of the parties to change their minds. This argument could (I think reasonably) be extended to picking the speaker. You could say that the government is being dysfunctional, but the number of votes it takes to pick a speaker is not in and of itself an indication of this. \nAll the number of rounds of voting indicates is that there’s disagreement and they’re taking a long time to make a decision. There are many important decisions that understandably lead to disagreement and take a long time to make. And choosing the speaker of the house, the de facto leader of the house, and third in line for the president, certainly falls under that category.\nLet’s say, for example, you are deciding which college to attend, and you and each of your parents disagree about which one would be best. Would the fact that you’re taking a long time to discuss it be proof that you live in a dis functional family?", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. It creates accountability, defeats monolithic habits, and definitely halts the horrible act of 'rubber stamping'.", ">\n\nIf you are the last holdout vote , suddenly money and power starts flowing your direction\nIt’s just a power play Which is what all the congress and senate and president do . All they care about is more money and more power for themselves .\nYou silly people don’t think they give a shit about us do you ?", ">\n\nWho cares if the house is weak? If a national consensus cannot be found, that indicates that there ought not to be national action on the subject, letting different localities decide things for themselves.", ">\n\nThe problem is the current setup, in both chambers, prevents action even when there is a national consensus.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter if America appears weak but is in fact strong?", ">\n\nBecause bullies are known to be emboldened by shows of weakness.", ">\n\nAnd when they try to take advantage they find the USA is strong so their plans, which relied on weakness, fail and their desire to harm the USA is revealed. Win win imo.", ">\n\nThere are loads of ways to take advantage though. We already are. If you truly don’t believe foreign intervention has been a major part of our recent elections there’s some news I got for ya", ">\n\nWho cares, speaker is a made up position anyways", ">\n\nAny of the Democrtas could have voted present or for McCarthy or just gone home and been absent and ended it . They gave the Gaetz Theater. This was all theater for CNN .", ">\n\nIt's a peculiar attack line that Dems make \"omg look at the GOP they argue among themselves publicly, not like us we are obedient and cronies\"\nI mean good lord listen to what you're implying\nI wish \"The Squad\" had the same cajones as the \"Freedom Caucus\" does. Maybe they'd have been able to earn some concessions and get free media to put out their narrative. Instead they fell in line and were obedient, and what did it achieve for us as progressives? 0. How many new progressives were elected in 2022 nationally? Maybe Fetterman counts other than him I can't think of one. Embarrassing and sad. Hakeem Jeffries is well known to loathe the Left he even gave an interview just as he became minority leader saying as much. \nBut hey \"the GOP fights in public those suckers\" keep telling yourselves that like it means anything", ">\n\nWe should not have a two party system it is written no where in our constitution or defining documents. The entire corruption of our government is defined by the two parties. Am I a fan of the policies held by the 20 something outliers, no. Do those 20 something outliers represent a group of Americans who hold similar beliefs, yes. It’s true representation. I don’t like what they stand for but I wish all sides would actually represent their constituents like these 20 do. Perhaps if all sides of our government split up to properly represent their constituents belief we’d see real change. I do not know what that change would be, I may not like that change but perhaps having our government governed by the people instead of large corporate special interests might be the way to go. Idk. \nIn terms of marriage my significant other and I argue all the time in public in private it makes no difference. We care about one another greatly and the arguing doesn’t indicate weakness. In fact the more we argue the more people inch away in utter discomfort. Think these crazy fucks what will they do next. Perhaps the rest of the world will feel the same those crazy Americans don’t want to mess with them something terrible could go wrong at the drop of a coin.", ">\n\nAll 210 or however many Democrats insisting on voting in lockstep is what's embarrassing. I can't stand the politics of those 20 hold outs but I admire them for actually having some principle beyond \"my team good\".", ">\n\nAre you serious? Democrats voting in a way the forced the GOP to figure their shit out is embarassing? What sort of logic is that? What should they have done instead, voted for McCarthy to no benefit?", ">\n\nLol, yes, that was their noble intention.", ">\n\nI mean that is what they were doing so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.", ">\n\nOh my god, they chanted USA? In the House? I mean, that's just cringe in the first place; the Speaker vote debacle just makes it even more so.", ">\n\nYes. They did. Do that. I wouldn't have thought so until I saw it on the news. It was the cringiest display of faux patriotism I have ever seen.", ">\n\nWe know this House is broken and won't get anything done, and therefore Congress won't get anything done.\nHere's the thing, though.\nHistorically, whenever the Republicans are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever the Democrats are in power, the economy declines.\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\nI do not have an entirely negative attitude about two years of hopeless gridlock.", ">\n\n\nWhenever there's hopeless gridlock, the economy grows rapidly.\n\nOh really ? \nCan you give an example ?\nBecause for the life of me...I just haven't been able to fathom how this week's nonsense in the house is helpful. I'm desperate to have my mind changed to get a positive spin out of this.", ">\n\n!delta\nAdmittedly my understanding of Wallstreet is limited. But this article was a good read. A possible positive effect of congress gridlock ?\nI couldn't think of any benefits of this. \nThank you for the read.", ">\n\nJust to add some context here, I'm a person whose preferred state of affairs is federal gridlock.\nMy life is pretty good and there aren't any pressing issues that affect me. I also believe that most issues can be resolved by the state government.\nThe biggest risk in my eyes is the ever-increasing deficit, but neither party actually wants to do anything to address it. Therefore, anything that gets passed will likely be increasing the deficit in one way or the other. Democrats increase spending and nominally increase tax revenue, republicans decrease revenue.\nSo why would I want either party be able to pass any of their agenda. I lose either way. I'm not in a high enough income bracket that I'll be the primary beneficiary of any tax breaks, but my income is too high to benefit from any of the entitlement spending that gets passed. Either way I lose.", ">\n\nWhat about the differences in social policy, though? Like, the respect for marriage act wouldn't have passed with Republicans in control.", ">\n\nthis is forcing swamp monsters like mccarthy to actually address issues that have plagued congress. the freedom caucus people are heros at this point. they've said \"Fuck the machine. we are going to throw our selves upon the gears, so that until we are free the machine cannot operate at all\". \nAmerica is sick right now, we have so many issues that its disgusting. The fact that i cant know if joe biden just went and put his thumb on the scale of an Epstein investigation over the holidays, because he has a history of doing what appears to have happened here, is insane to me. the public has zero trust at all in government, because its grown too fat from corruption. Overseas aid is literally just a campaign slushfund that gets laundered back to the bigger players super pacs for next years campaign. \nThe state of our government is purely disgusting, and i would rather the government be incapable of functioning at all, than to be forced to accept and participate in this this psychotic existence and broken system at literal gunpoint not even one more day.", ">\n\nSorry, u/PM_Me_Thicc_Puppies – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\nComments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information. \nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.", ">\n\nPolitical theater, ignore and forget", ">\n\nComparing the government to a household is the foundation that allows you to be so misguided. A household is the building lock of a society. The federal government is an entity whose only function is to use force on the people it gets its funding from. \nDid you see what the freedom caucus was demanding? Why did these republicans not want Mcarthy and what was it that he wasn’t willing to give them? \nThey wanted him to agree to step down if at any point the house holds a vote and votes to remove him. That’s fucking accountability right there. They wanted a vote on term limits, they wanted to get rid of 4K page bills and allow a minimum of 3 days for members to read bills before voting on them. They wanted all funding to be listed upfront instead of hiding $3 million to a South American clown college in the middle of a healthcare bill…this was a HUGE win for the people.", ">\n\nI think you missed the point if the disagreements. The prior leadership had changed the House rules in ways that consolidated too much power in leadership. They were fighting to return power back to the representatives that WE voted in. Blindly following a small group is not how it's supposed to work. That's how socialist governments work. I was incredibly frustrated that it took 15 votes. I emailed my rep about it and demanded he stop obstructing the process. I knew it would be twisted into a narrative of chaos. However, I also understood why it was happening. Each Representative is supposed to reflect the beliefs and agenda of the people in their district. That's the opposite of individualism. Sometimes, it's ugly and frustrating watching the process work as intended. I will take that over everyone standing lock-step with leaders who have no idea what the people in my state want.", ">\n\nSo you are in favor of one party having control and there being no deviance within their beliefs and everyone falling in line? Are you in love with the 2 party system?\nWhat do you want? People to vote against what they believe in? Democrats to betray their own party and vote for what the majority of Republicans want? The Republicans that are against the guy with the most votes to cave and give in?\nSeriously, your belief is that everyone should \"fall in line and vote together\" for someone they dislike?\nIt once took 133 attempts at voting. It's weird to be embarrassed that your country has people who don't easily abandon their beliefs.", ">\n\nNot embarrassing at all. All debates should be as animated and passionate.", ">\n\nI respectfully disagree. To me, this is politics, or at least what it should be. Seeing the Democratic “progressives” bend the knee for Pelosi in 2019 when they could’ve used this same tactic to get her to put a public healthcare option vote on the floor just showed how fake and scared the squad is. Why fall in line in lock step with corrupt self serving politicians like Pelosi who only have corporate interests in mind?\nThis may look like disfunction, but in reality all conservatives aren’t supposed to agree on everything just like all libs shouldn’t either. The idea that there should be two rigid ideologies and nothing in between is insane and quite frankly, the reason our duopoly that parades as a democracy is such a farce.", ">\n\nI'm out of the loop out and not in the US - is this guy that finally got elected a decent Republican or one of the crazies?", ">\n\nHalfway. He's an arse who is trash to his fellow lower Republicans because he expects the leadership, but he's also very loud about he always supports Trump and other more leader types. Everyone expects him to be just a mouthpiece for others, the only question is how much they can force themselves to be the hand up his sock.", ">\n\nIt is absolutely embarrassing. Our politicians need to remember they are there to advocate for the people. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else: you are there for the people. This BS petty garbage accomplishes nothing and wastes time and resources. Sadly, it ‘worked’ well enough for those dissenters that it is very likely this ‘strategy’ will continue to be used. I would expect a remarkably unproductive next 2 years, Congressionally speaking.\nEvidence that this is a sign of bad things to come: the last time it was this difficult to get a consensus for speaker of the house was the Civil War era.", ">\n\nYour comment may get removed for not opposing the OP.\nBut thanks.\nI thought I was the one who was getting it wrong.", ">\n\nYou've only replied to posts that agree with you, meanwhile there are some good comments awaiting your word.\nAre you really here to have your mind changed?", ">\n\nRead it again. I did give out a Delta.\nBut the subreddit is called change my view...its not called \"agree with the first comment\"\nIf someone gives a compelling counterargument ...I may give a Delta ....which I have", ">\n\nI never implied the subreddit was anything else.\n10 minutes ago when I came into the thread, you had only replied to the lowest-voted comments who agreed with you, and which were more recent than the higher-effort comments who were engaging with your prompt. This is why I commented, not because you were being incorrigible, but because you were neglecting the relevant comments.\nGlad to see you got to them!", ">\n\nWe are all guilty of complacency. We elect people to decide for us then watch TV to see what happens.", ">\n\nAfter you fail 3 times someone else should be nominated.", ">\n\nWe only have to look at the events of jan 6th to see what an inactive government will result in. \nThe insurrectionists believe their election was stolen and that the government wasn’t doing anything to correct the issue, so when they felt like the proper channels weren’t handling things, they rioted. \nThe fact that this vote didn’t result in fist fights is arguably a good thing. That’s the function of government, even if most rational people agree that it was childish and petty for the “freedom caucus” to hold out in the weird ass hopes djt might be speaker or because McCarthy isnt “loyal enough”\nIt was dumb, and childish, but these people are also citizens of the US, and represent their blocks, so the arguments, holding out, govt grinding to a halt, that’s all the price of democracy. \nNot the next problem is going to be what McCarthy had to agree to in order to secure those last votes. I’m all for term limits but I really don’t want to have a whole two years of hunter Biden’s laptop and this obsession over the border and the imaginary caravans. Those crusades will hurt us much more in the long run because we’re going to be addressing things that won’t help us, just persecute people, but that’s a problem for another day.", ">\n\nSad but true.\nI wasn't impressed by the \"freedom caucus\" at all.", ">\n\nAs you shouldn't be, they're not for freedom or democracy", ">\n\nThe kind of people who take 3 days to accomplish a 30 minute task are exactly the kind of assholes who chant USA USA USA.", ">\n\n*undeserving.", ">\n\nThe house selected a speaker? Neither spiegel.de not cnn.com have it. Did I miss something?", ">\n\nIt’s not a marriage \nIt’s 250 people forced together and locked in a room and they are all looking for a way to rake in the most money and power", ">\n\nWhy should politics resemble marriage in any way?", ">\n\nIt's a 100% waste of time.", ">\n\nAre you new to American politics or something?", ">\n\n\nA house divided, is weak.\n\nA house divided is no house at all, it's a weak facade of a functioning republic.\nUS Politics has always been two sides of the same coin. This is one of the first public instances of political division and differences.\n\nPolitics has a lot to do with appearances...and an appearance of a divided, weak, bickering house of representatives ...feels more like a threat to national security than a proud american moment.\n\nA uni-party state lacks the checks and balances that come from having multiple political parties competing against each other. Without the presence of real opposition parties, the ruling party may become complacent and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the broader population.\nWhat you might see as bickering and bad optics is actually a very positive thing. Opposition, even within the same party, is still factional opposition. If the voting system will never allow for true representation of diverse viewpoints, then the next best thing is factional opposition.", ">\n\n\nOur individualism is nothing to be proud of ... if it means we are so locked in disagreement that our house of representatives is non-functional.\n\nPerhaps non-functional is preferable to functional? I mean if you think that a government body does more harm than good, then rendering it unable to do anything is an improvement.", ">\n\nParty is fine. This will be especially obvious if Desantis becomes Republican nominee in 2024.", ">\n\nParty is fine ?\nReally? So where was the November Red wave?", ">\n\nYes the party is fine What are you talking about ? Republicans took the house lol. Like congratulations the democrats didn’t lose as bad as they thought they would XD. What propaganda is this that has convinced people that the midterms were somehow a Democratic Party victory lmao", ">\n\nAmerica: whoever gets most votes wins, even if it's not 50%.\nCongress: bruh, we gonna vote until we get the result we want.", ">\n\nI’m new here on Reddit can anyone please send me karma", ">\n\nMore important, is this McCarthy a good choice? I'm not American so I know nothing about the US politics except what's said on Reddit, and I've never heard from him besides today.", ">\n\nHere's a way to perceive it...\nThe American Right is looking for what it IS in this moment. \nIt is our responsibility to accept or reject this political accommodation.\nDid the Right embrace the Trumpian future?\nDid the Right turn the corner back to its previous stance?\nThey stand at a crossroads." ]