Simple Math, or, Why Democrats Have Better Discipline Than Republicans
I have sometimes heard Democrats complain that Republicans have better party discipline than Democrats. This complaint is wrong, and the showdown over judicial filibusters is a perfect example of why.
Consider this simple mathematical truism: 55 is closer to 60 than it is to 49.
Say that out loud, and think for a second about what it means.
It would take just 5 Democrats to vote for cloture to break any given filibuster of a judicial nominee. But 6 Republicans would have to break ranks to kill the “nuclear option.” (Vice President Cheney could and would break a 50-50 tie in Republicans’ favor.)
Voting for cloture is a way out of this controversy, and it wouldn’t require any Senate rules to be changed. If just 5 Democrats would break ranks, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
So why are we always hearing about the 6-7 squishy Republicans who may balk at the nuclear option? Why are they constantly being interviewed and asked how they would vote? Where are the squishy Democrats? Why aren’t they being asked why they won’t vote for cloture?
I think the answer is simple. There aren’t any squishy Democrats. Or, if there are, it doesn’t matter. Their party’s leadership has them in line.
If only Republicans could find leadership like that . . .
[…] Patterico
@
6:21 pm
Yesterday I wondered why Big Media is asking squis […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Will Ken Salazar Keep His Campaign Promise and Vote for Cloture? (0c6a63) — 5/13/2005 @ 1:21 amI think that unfortunately there are few squishy Democrats or Republicans. Because of gerrymandering the majority of seats in Congress are “safe” districts. They have little to fear from a challenge by the opposite party. This has concentrated the presence of party zealots in Congress who feel free to be as far Right or Left as they wish free of consequence.
I would bet you that those wishy-washy Republicans are either some of the few remaining moderates or are in some of the few competitive Congressional districts remaining in the country. We now have a Congress full of idealogical hard-liners. How closely do they truly represent the views of the average American? Are there times when the ability to compromise is valuable in a Democracy?
Patrick (Gryph) (bfa195) — 5/11/2005 @ 10:21 amI know I’m quibbling with your math, but the Republicans are slightly more at risk of losing their majority than the Democrats are of the GOP getting 60 votes to end cloture.
Only 10.9% of the GOP Senators (6 of 55)have to break ranks for the Democrats to prevail. On the other hand, the GOP has to pull support from 11.1% of the Democrats (5 of 45) to get to the magic 60.
We could, in the interest of rounding, call it a draw and say that the numbers favor neither side. In that case, as you posted, it does come down to which side has the better intra-party discipline… which I agree favors the Democrats.
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 5/11/2005 @ 10:35 amHello??? We are talking about the Senate which is a statewide office. It’s not affected by gerrymandering.
Gerald A (add20f) — 5/11/2005 @ 11:02 amI’d like to see the Democrats filibuster – after 4 days they will give up as their silly objections to specific qualifications become well known and laughed at. Part of the Senator’s job description is doing filibusters, and I want to see that.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 5/11/2005 @ 11:31 amThis is unconvincing because you are comparing votes which are not equivalent. If you look at the bankruptcy bill vote the Republicans were much more unified then the Democrats.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/11/2005 @ 11:42 amThis is unconvincing because you are comparing votes which are not equivalent.
What do you mean “you are comparing votes which are not equivalent”? You’re the one comparing votes which are not equivalent. On fillibusters no Dems are breaking ranks and Republicans are.
You’re right that the bankruptcy bill is “not equivalent” to fillibusters. The bill was unrelated to their long term political strategy/objectives so the Dem leadership let people vote whatever way they wanted.
Gerald A (dd601b) — 5/11/2005 @ 12:19 pmI’m sure what Patrick meant by Gerrymandering is that we should redraw the boundaries of the states.
Looking at the ‘red county blue county’ maps I think we could draw some pretty outrageous state boundaries. 😀 Should we pick a straight ‘Each state shall have the same geographic footprint’ option? That might get us to around 80-R, 20-D in the Senate. Or worse if you really work at it. Yeaouch.
Al (00c56b) — 5/11/2005 @ 12:27 pm” Where are the squishy Democrats?”
atoning for their capitulation to the credit card industry.
actus (0f2616) — 5/11/2005 @ 1:55 pmGerald A., there was a filibuster against the bankruptcy bill and many Democrats broke ranks to invoke cloture. You can prove practically anything by looking at votes selectively. On some votes the Democrats will be more united than the Republicans and vice versa. And being more united isn’t necessarily because of party discipline, it may be that there is just more agreement on a given issue in one party than the other.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/11/2005 @ 4:23 pmLadainian said “I’d like to see the Democrats filibuster – after 4 days they will give up as their silly objections to specific qualifications become well known and laughed at.” I couldn’t agree more. Maybe the “great” republican leadership could make the democrats ACTUALLY filibuster. All this talk of filibuster is nonsense. Since when has anyone actually filibustered in say the last decade? It’s way past time to call the democrats’ bluff.
I’d say to the democrats: “Go ahead and filibuster starting now!” But you must actually stand up and talk the whole time. For instance you could start by explaining your objections to Justice Brown, the fine African-American female California Supreme Court judge who was reelected by in excess of 75% of the votes cast. Explain, please, how she wants to return the country to the days of the civil war and how she’s so far outside the mainstream that she doesn’t belong on an appeals court.
Then you could move on for several days to talk about say Manuel Estrada (pardon the spelling) and about how this fine young Hispanic man moved here from Latin America speaking little if any English and worked his way up through Harvard (or maybe it was Yale?) law school.
There are other equally good examples. Ladainian is right on about this. Let’s see a real filibuster like the democrats used to give us whenever civil rights legislation was being debated.
Harry Arthur (7e6ccc) — 5/11/2005 @ 6:25 pmThe “moderates” use conflicts like the judicial nominees to sell their votes to the highest bidder. I bet McCain, Snowe, Chaffe et al all have a good chuck of pork in the current highway bill, and the giving keeps on coming. This “too close” divided government is costing us all with deficits that come from this stupid “legal bribing” of this “high maintenance” center.
Neo (7136ee) — 5/11/2005 @ 7:32 pmLadainian and Harry have a good idea (force an actual filibuster), but, unfortunately, the rules in the senate are strongly against that. As I understand it, the Republicans would need to keep 50 senators on hand to prevent the issue from being dropped, while the Dems would only need to keep enough to keep it going–so the rest could go home and rest. The republicans would lose that sort of conflict very quickly.
And yes, the current rules are significantly different from the rules during the 60’s. There’s a lot more power given to the minority party now–and it’d take a 66% majority to change them back. Good luck getting that.
VTConservative (1018e9) — 5/12/2005 @ 9:03 amVTC, you are undoubtedly correct but the republicans need to start showing some serious backbone and at least ATTEMPT to force a REAL filibuster then let the democrats try to make the case to the American people that they don’t REALLY want a REAL filibuster because, gee, it’s too hard.
I am a life-long conservative but unless I start seeing some real leadership among the republicans for a change I’m going to start staying home during elections and quit wasting my time. If that means that the democrats start winning, so what? What has supporting the spineless republicans accomplished aside from out of control spending and business as usual?
Harry Arthur (d10023) — 5/12/2005 @ 10:57 am“Hello??? We are talking about the Senate which is a statewide office. It’s not affected by gerrymandering. ”
Which is why my post specified “Congress”, not House or Senate.
I think if Arnold gets nothing done but the anti-gerrymandering bill passed it will be the most important work and legacy that a Governor has accomplished in CA in the last 100 years. – And I voted for Davis.
Patrick (Gryph) (bfa195) — 5/12/2005 @ 2:40 pm