• Chainweasel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It still baffles me that out of 535 435 house members, 8 of them are running the show

    • @ikapoz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      50
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Put slightly differently. Eight members of the house can cause total gridlock because the other 427 can’t even countenance taking a single step of compromise - and not even compromise on an actual law - compromise on the person who presides over the process.

      The problem isn’t really the eight. The problem is that the process has gotten so fucked we can no longer work around a 1.8% nut job rate.

      Edit: math

      • @BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        711 year ago

        While you are kind of correct, grouping the democrats in as part of the group that won’t compromise is not fair. They’ve come to the table with demands for compromise, and they didn’t start this problem so it’s not theirs to clean up. It’s the right and moderate right that aren’t compromising.

        • Zorque
          link
          fedilink
          351 year ago

          Indeed, the problem has been that Democrats have been compromising to keep the government running for decades, and it finally came to a point where the other team decided they could start getting away with anything.

        • @ikapoz@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          -231 year ago

          Fault and fairness are irrelevant; they’ve never had anything to do with how government functions and damn sure don’t look to start mattering any time soon. A two party system this polarized simply will. not. work.

          • uphillbothways
            link
            fedilink
            171 year ago

            Which is exactly why it’s important not to bail the republicans out of their self imposed ongoing schism. They need to be broken up and that can’t happen unless they repeatedly fail to caucus together on even simple procedural tasks like electing a speaker. This is an ideal problem brought upon themselves to show they are already not a single unified party. Just a loose agglomeration of shit stirrers. Two bad kids in their granddad’s trench coat.

            • @ikapoz@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              -91 year ago

              I certainly wouldn’t say that bailing them out is the best choice, either from a moral or a practical point of view. My point was merely that the eight nutters here are not the real problem. They are merely symptom of much more grave and perhaps systemic threats to the governmental system.

              • Zorque
                link
                fedilink
                121 year ago

                … which Republicans have a large hand in perpetuating.

                I’m not saying Democrats are the saints and angels, but they’re a damn sight better than their red-faced counter-parts. What little enabling their members do pales in comparison to the enabling of the Republican party.

                Wholesale change needs to happen. And moving The Leftovers party out of it’s middle-of-the-road approach is part of that, but it’s not even close to a majority. Trying to lump the two together as some sort of “everyone in government is bad!” approach is disingenuous and antithetical to seeking change.

                If you want to see a solution, stop trying to generalize the problem. We’ve had generalized “solutions” for decades, and it’s done nothing but slow the degradation a little bit at best.

                  • Zorque
                    link
                    fedilink
                    41 year ago

                    My assumption is that you’re casting too wide a net because you’re just tired of the status quo, but you don’t really know who to really blame. So you’re blaming everyone.

          • @KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            They are relevant when it comes to elections. And that’s all that ultimately matters in our system.

      • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Democrats are open to compromise.

        They have indicated that they are willing to support empowering McHenry until January.

        Democrats are also willing to support other Republicans as Speaker, provided Republicans offer something in return.

        But they aren’t willing to support election deniers (like Jordan), and they won’t support people who previously reneged on deals with Democrats (like McCarthy).

        Not that it matters, because Republicans refuse to support anyone who needs Democratic support to become Speaker.

        • But they aren’t willing to support election deniers (like Jordan),

          I just want to say that while people who refuse to acknowledge that Biden won the 2020 election should be rightfully called election deniers, Jordan’s role is so much more involved: he actively attempted to get the election decertified and throw the vote to Trump.

          That makes him at least one of the figureheads of an attempted coup d’etat, someone who tried to end democracy in America in order to install an unelected leader in the White House.

          If he had succeeded, America today would no longer be a democracy, a nation where the electorate chooses its representatives.

          If it was up to Jim Jordan, we would now live in a dictatorship, with Trump as the unelected ruler who would no longer be beholden to the will of the people or the rule of law.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        this shit show is made by republicans, continued by republicans and is entirely republicans fucking it up. Considering McCarthy failed to abide deals he had already made, why should democrats trust him to honor a second deal?

        if republicans were even nominally bipartisan- like, you know, any reasonable body would be if the majority was led by exactly 4 votes- we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      181 year ago

      If the number of seats in the House had not been frozen a century ago, this would not be a problem as it would provide representation proportional to population (as outlined in the US Constitution), rather than artificially amplifying the voices of low-population states. As it stands, citizens in Wyoming (pop. ~577k, 1 rep) have any twice as much representation per capita than those of Delaware (pop ~1.003M, 1 rep), while both have a single Representative. Compared to California (pop. ~39.24M, 52 reps), which has a ratio of 1 rep:~755k people.

      There is, to be said, an issue of maintaining the level of proportionality originally intended (1 rep : 30k people). This would require over 11k representatives today. However, using the “Wyoming Rule”, where the number of seats is proportional to that required to provide one Representative per population of the least populace state (currently Wyoming), the number is only about 575. That’s much more manageable and would do a better job of providing equal representation and making gerrymandering harder.

      • Chainweasel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        You’re right. To be honest the website FiveThirtyEight always fucks me up on that number for some reason

        • Zorque
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Those are the number of electors in the electoral college when electing a president.

    • @cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Because McCarthy gave away guaranteed power to avoid compromise with any Democrat.

      McCarthy made the deal that allowed the 8 to oust him.

    • Dudewitbow
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      In an ideal world, the speaker is supposed to be the most centrist person, but when you have parties of hardliners and refusal to make comcessions, you get the shit thats happening right now.