Follow the Party line or else! House Republicans consider proposal to punish members who don't vote
23 replies, posted
[quote]House Republicans are quietly discussing a proposal that could fundamentally alter the way future speakers of the House are chosen, according to multiple GOP sources, with the objective of avoiding a repeat of John Boehner's embarrassing reelection vote in 2013.
The rule tweak began as an informal discussion but has morphed into a concrete proposal that is beginning to circulate in the House. According to people briefed on it, any Republican who votes on the House floor in January against the conference's nominee for House speaker—that is, the candidate chosen by a majority of the House GOP during its closed-door leadership elections in November—would be severely punished. Specifically, sources say, any dissenters would be stripped of all committee assignments for that Congress.
"There's a real concern that there's between 30 and 40 people that would vote against the speaker on the House floor, so they're trying to change the conference rules to make sure that doesn't happen," said a GOP member familiar with the proposal.[/quote]
[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/possible-rules-change-could-punish-boehner-dissidents-20140919[/url]
I have no respect for any political party that forces all of its members to conform to a strict set of rules, under fear of reprieve for not towing the line.
Generally you join a party, if for the most part, their ideological tenets are in line with yours, but you are still have one or a few different things that you won't see eye to eye with.
At least with communism the people got a vote. Everyone had to shut up about it afterwards but they got a vote.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;46069735]I have no respect for any political party that forces all of its members to conform to a strict set of rules, under fear of reprieve for not towing the line.
Generally you join a party, if for the most part, their ideological tenets are in line with yours, but you are still have one or a few different things that you won't see eye to eye with.[/QUOTE]
Especially since that, unlike in other countries, people of the US don't vote for the party, they vote for the individual that's in the party.
By negating those who vote against the main tenets of the party, they're negating the will of the people who elected them.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;46069735]I have no respect for any political party that forces all of its members to conform to a strict set of rules, under fear of reprieve for not towing the line.
Generally you join a party, if for the most part, their ideological tenets are in line with yours, but you are still have one or a few different things that you won't see eye to eye with.[/QUOTE]
its not as if the democrafts don't have very similar blacklisting procedures for out of line congresspeople, TBH the whole committe system congress has built in the last 60 years is total garbage, pretty much all any congressman wants is to get on something important so they can get lobbiest moneys, if you're say on a commite that oversees defense contracts, you'll have millions pouring into your slush-relection fund, if you're on a regulatory committe then you'll have hundreds of millions flowing in from that industry
the best part is the majority party has pretty much total control over who does what, they can throw people on and off seats without any warning, procedure, or anything, so its among the most powerful of the party's punitive tools for out of line congressmen and its totally unregulated
Wow, this is surprisingly underhanded and brutal.
This is some shit I expect a corrupt Russian political party to be doing or something; bullying members to vote their way or the highway.
This government is beyond shameful.
i hope vermin supreme wins the election this time, fuck the GOP.
Its funny, they hate communism so much they [I]are[/I] communism.
I legitimately dont fucking see how people can support these fucking nutjobs. Racists, sexists, and stuck in the mcarthy era, and not to mention, fucking class elitists.
Tea Party got the GOP old guard running scared.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;46069735]I have no respect for any political party that forces all of its members to conform to a strict set of rules, under fear of reprieve for not towing the line.
Generally you join a party, if for the most part, their ideological tenets are in line with yours, but you are still have one or a few different things that you won't see eye to eye with.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liw6xmz77o1qiyg2io1_400.jpg[/t]
[I]Vote for what I vote or the kitten gets it.[/I]
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46070709]Its funny, they hate communism so much they [I]are[/I] communism.
I legitimately dont fucking see how people can support these fucking nutjobs. Racists, sexists, and stuck in the mcarthy era, and not to mention, fucking class elitists.[/QUOTE]
i honestly dont see how "they are communism".
I think you don't know much about communism.
On topic -
Why not save money and have 1 guy decided everything, would sure make this whole democracy thing simpler.
Tbh this isn't exactly extraordinary; parliamentary whips already exist in legislatures such as Australia's state and federal parliaments and part of their job is ensuring that members vote along the party line. It makes sense anyways; when you vote for your constituency representative you aren't voting for someone to make their own decisions on which way to vote for what (unless they are an independent candidate), you're voting for someone based on which party they are standing for on the idea that they will then vote on issues along the party line on your behalf as your representative in parliament.
Why would you even stand for a party in elections, but when you're elected you don't vote according to the party? You would be betraying your mandate given to you by your electors. Oh wait, maybe because the only way you can get into the lower houses of legislatures such as Australia's federal parliament or the US Congress is by being a candidate of a major party, as the electoral systems of those legislatures is inherently majoritarian and unrepresentative.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46072111]Tbh this isn't exactly extraordinary; parliamentary whips already exist in legislatures such as Australia's state and federal parliaments and part of their job is ensuring that members vote along the party line. It makes sense anyways; when you vote for your constituency representative you aren't voting for someone to make their own decisions on which way to vote for what (unless they are an independent candidate), you're voting for someone based on which party they are standing for on the idea that they will then vote on issues along the party line on your behalf as your representative in parliament.
Why would you even stand for a party in elections, but when you're elected you don't vote according to the party? You would be betraying your mandate given to you by your electors. Oh wait, maybe because the only way you can get into the lower houses of legislatures such as Australia's federal parliament or the US Congress is by being a candidate of a major party, as the electoral systems of those legislatures is inherently majoritarian and unrepresentative.[/QUOTE]
it's extraordinary for the US due to their political system until recently. The presidential system kinda relies on the parties to only have rough ideological directions and not strong party tenets.
Else you end up in constant deadlocks. Which is where the US is heading.
As much as the whip system works in countries like the UK a whip system in US politics is completely uncompatible and would just end up dividing the party more
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46072658]it's extraordinary for the US due to their political system until recently. The presidential system kinda relies on the parties to only have rough ideological directions and not strong party tenets.
Else you end up in constant deadlocks. Which is where the US is heading.[/QUOTE]
Where it's heading? It's already there! The Democrats in the Senate reject bills passed by Democrats in the House, the Republicans actually control the House, and although the Democrats have a majority in the Senate the Republicans control that chamber as well through using the filibuster (it is so dumb, as it can become a complete non-issue by having something as simple as time limits like in the Australian Senate). Then finally there is the Democrat President. 'Muh checks and balances' all you like, but then you look at how the US compares to other first world countries and is the structural inefficiency really worth it?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46072791]Where it's heading? It's already there! The Democrats in the Senate reject bills passed by Democrats in the House, the Republicans actually control the House, and although the Democrats have a majority in the Senate the Republicans control that chamber as well through using the filibuster (it is so dumb, as it can become a complete non-issue by having something as simple as time limits like in the Australian Senate). Then finally there is the Democrat President. 'Muh checks and balances' all you like, but then you look at how the US compares to other first world countries and is the structural inefficiency really worth it?[/QUOTE]
If it wasn't for the executive being able to enact legislation, the US would have the progression of a glacier.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46070208]Wow, this is surprisingly underhanded and brutal.
This is some shit I expect a corrupt Russian political party to be doing or something; bullying members to vote their way or the highway.
This government is beyond shameful.[/QUOTE]
Well in Canada if you don't follow party discipline you get booted out of the party iirc.
It's good and bad but yeah it definitely sucks with someone like Harper in charge.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;46071043]Tea Party got the GOP old guard running scared.[/QUOTE]
To be fair the tea party has most rational people running scared.
They are just trying to put democracy down, it's an act of mercy guys.
I'm imagining some sort of freakish alternate future where the republicans have a dictatorial hold over the US, and we all worship Big Boehner.
I, for one, welcome Franco's Dictatorship 2.0.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;46076824]Well in Canada if you don't follow party discipline you get booted out of the party iirc.
It's good and bad but yeah it definitely sucks with someone like Harper in charge.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but that's normal. Keep in mind that while they get booted from the party, they don't get booted from the parliament.
Rules can always be changed back. Overuse of this kind of punitive power can have it's consequences. Besides, it's always been done before on an informal basis.
Boehner definitely isn't going anywhere, he's camped out right on House Republicans' median point. This is more about avoiding embarrassment, bringing the Tea Party to heel, and making sure his position has the legitimacy of a near-unanimous vote. It's all just structuring for some big pushes when they take the Senate this year. Not that anything they do will make it into law...
in finland the politicians [I]can[/I] vote against the party's will but they get sanctioned for it, either warned or kicked out the party
so they usually simply [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention]abstain[/url] in the vote
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.