Tyrannical1 t1_j412osd wrote
Everyone’s making a big deal out of it taking 15 votes this time around…
Isn’t it more concerning that the 435 people we elect to collectively represent us and our wildly diverse needs and opinions rarely requires more than one vote to obtain a majority?
zebulon99 t1_j415519 wrote
Electing a speaker is usually very uncontrovesial so people are willing to compromise. Its not like the speaker is running the country.
Ferelar t1_j4g2u3g wrote
Granted, they ARE third in line for the presidency and set significant policy agendas
beenoc t1_j415r2j wrote
Don't forget that the makeup of Congress is known 2 months before they actually are sworn in and vote for Speaker. The meetings and discussions don't start when the voting starts, they start the Wednesday morning in the second week of November.
chicagotim1 t1_j421nnv wrote
That's a fair point, but in practice we only have 2 parties and each one coalesce behind "their guy" and whatever party has more Representatives gets their guy.
HobbitFoot t1_j41kj7s wrote
On the flip side, you have the Senate and the fillabuster rule.
60% seems to cause a lot more complaints.
ZetaZeta t1_j43u74b wrote
No, it's more concerning that individuals elected by wildly different ideologies don't disagree like this more often.
Debate, dissent, and compromise should be commonplace. It's actually about time there was some minute level of dissonance in congress rather than the uniparty machine we've had for a lifetime.
ELVEVERX t1_j44kztp wrote
>No, it's more concerning that individuals elected by wildly different ideologies don't disagree like this more often.
This is a procedural decision it's not like debating legislation.
TattooHelpPlease2 t1_j41628l wrote
Yes, I prefer this. This is actual democracy at work, and representatives making a splash as opposed to just going along with what's expected. Some good concessions were achieved by holding out against this establishment Republican.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments