As a member of the committee, can you explain why it's only the opposing party's seats which haven't been filled, and why the committee is so heavily stacked against them (7 vs 3.5, if we assume a rando is not going to be very effective)?
Yeah, I’d say they expected it to actually work. They misjudged just how far to the sidelines they’d already been pushed. The body nominally held all the power (any four of them voting together, that is) but in fact one member held that power.
It doesn't matter how many votes they had (1 would be enough). They were necessary for forming the coalition, therefore they could extort other larger coalition parties to give in to their demands.
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single VOTE has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
It is not difficult to discover, that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption, as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed. The mistake has proceeded from not attending with due care to the mischiefs that may be occasioned by obstructing the progress of government at certain critical seasons. When the concurrence of a large number is required by the Constitution to the doing of any national act, we are apt to rest satisfied that all is safe, because nothing improper will be likely TO BE DONE, but we forget how much good may be prevented, and how much ill may be produced, by the power of hindering the doing what may be necessary, and of keeping affairs in the same unfavorable posture in which they may happen to stand at particular periods."
I agree, but I don't think it was just Jefferson? He negotiated a compromise because he needed more votes. Seems like this implies he did have some votes (from southern states), just not enough?
That's not the opposition's fault, or the adverserial system's. It's infighting. And to be honest they could still get a fair bit done with a majority of 80, should they feel inclined.
It’s interesting to note that this decision did not come down along typical ideological lines either. The majority was three conservatives and two liberals, while the minority was two conservatives and two liberals.
News of the day: slim majorities in a legislature are hard to work with because it gives fringe members of the majority party more power.
This has been demonstrated with Sinema and Manchin on the Democratic side. Now we are seeing it on the Republican side. It's also been seen in pretty much every coalition government that has ever been negotiated in a parliamentary system. Israel and Spain make Americans look like amateurs at this kind of intra-party stunt.
If the Republican party had won like 5 more seats, in a body with over 400 members, this never would have happened. In the UK, the people who resisted the leader would have been expelled from the party. Here in the US, if you call yourself a Republican nobody has legal standing to say you aren't one.
This really isn't that interesting, other than as a general observation about how having a slim majority makes parties weak.
Also, there was no other plausible candidate. Every other potential contender would have faced a much harder, and longer, election process. The most obvious result is the one we got, even though it gave the talking heads on the TV news something to talk about for several days. What other outcome was possible?
reply