How to Solve the House Speakership Problem (Maybe?)
What if the House speaker was chosen this way.
1. Each party chooses 10 names from the other party for Speaker of the House.
2. Of the 10 they chose they hold a second vote, retaining the three that received the most votes and discarding the others.
3. Of those 3, a last round of vote to choose 1.
4. Put the qualifying 2 candidates names in a hat and draw. The winner becomes the Speaker of the House.
5. All votes and the drawing of a name for Speaker are done according to a timetable established by law with no loopholes.
What do you think? I think it might bring things away from the extremes and more towards the center. Probably would need some fine tuning, but....
The proposal won't work because we only have two political parties. A two party system does not require forming a coalition because one of the two parties will almost always achieve a majority.
What you are proposing is a coalition government where a single party doesn't usually achieve a majority. Naturally that would require more than two political parties.
In the past, each of our two parties had wings; liberal, moderate, conservative. So, each party was a quasi-coalition within itself. And the wings of the two parties would also form coalitions. Today each political party has become a monoculture of ideology and lacks the ideological diversity of half a century ago. IMO that started to change with Lyndon Johnson.
I'm not sure I see your point. We're not trying to form a government here. Just choose a speaker without all the nonsense we see now. The timetable, which let's say is one month, cannot be changed. They have to vote at established times regardless of any other considerations.
Well, you've proposed a method that consists of attempting to force each party to accept leadership by the other party. That's the razzle dazzle process of each party picking nominees from the other party. That appears to be an artificial means of forcing some sort of compromising coalition onto the process of selecting a Speaker. But the final vote in the sequence would still be a partisan vote; Democrats voting for a Democrat and Republicans voting for a Republican. To overcome that obvious partisan outcome, the two winning candidates are subjected to random chance.
Why not just flip a coin to choose between Kevin McCarthy and Hakeem Jefferies? That's the only thing your proposal accomplishes. It's not democratic but that's not the point, is it?
Republicans did not remove Kevin McCarthy from the Speakership. And every Republican nominee to replace McCarthy has received an overwhelming majority of votes from Republicans. Republicans are being accused of failing to form a monolithic, united coalition that can overcome Democrats' obstructing votes. It's Democrats who are voting in a lockstep, partisan manner to prevent electing a Speaker.
That is an interesting idea. That would require everyone involved to respect and abide by the system. Unfortunately, there are some who will never cooperate unless the have all the power, that is why our current system is struggling. The system we have today requires the same sort of cooperation between differing ideologies as your proposal.
Thank you. The general idea behind it is basically to choose someone from the other party they think they can work with. Someone closer to being a centrist and less likely to run with the extremists of their own party. Maybe drawing the name at the end isn't the best thing but the intent behind that is to eliminate behind the scenes deal making or the majority party alone picking one of the final two. The hoped for effect of the random drawing was to ensure the two candidates were as close to the center as possible.
I'm not sure that's true as we aren't seeing much cooperation. Unless you mean requires cooperation in order to function as intended rather than the way it's been operating for some time now.
The current House has demonstrated that they will not participate in a bipartisan process without something extra to gain.
The Ds will not cooperate to elect an R speaker unless they are given concessions (which are likely to be substantial).
The Rs will not cooperate to elect a D speaker (seemingly on any condition).
The Rs seem unable to cooperate among themselves.
What you propose is a rational solution in a highly partisan and divisive environment. Too bad rationality takes a back seat.
Our political system is functioning quite rationally in a winner-take-all environment. A party autocracy imposing political ideology onto its constituency has no need to govern in a bipartisan manner.
When the internal functioning of a political party is autocratic then how can that political party govern in a democratic manner?
Indeed. It cannot.
the solution to the maga caucus problem was demonstrated yesterday when the pedophile enabler got tossed out of contention in closed conference after being defeated 3 times. secret ballot.
Not talking about what the current circus would do. They're hopeless and, really, it's just a waste of time, since no matter who gets the Speakership, we'll just go right back to not doing anything useful anyway.
I'm talking about the system I'm proposing. As stated, the point would be to hopefully select a Speaker as close to the center as possible. What I was hoping for from everyone was to flesh out the proposal a bit more or explore how it could go wrong.
Your proposal is, as I noted, a rational way to democratically elect a speaker.
Partisan politics, however, is not interested in democracy if it means a loss of any power. The problem is partisanship and a powerful minority faction in the majority party due to a razor thin majority.
This problem would not matter if the Speaker was the one who got the most votes out of two nominees in a quorum. We could have runoffs if more than two nominees remain until we winnow down to two. Then we have a final vote and the Speaker is picked.
With my caveat established, I have trouble with the following:
Right, which is the purpose of my proposal; to try and eliminate that. The time period for votes would be one week apart, as I'm currently thinking. No time for much negotiating or whatever. The hope is, reps would have to vote by past performance rather than deal making. Regardless of partisanship or how fractured either party is, the vote will happen. Whever gets the votes advances, deal or no deal.
I recognize that my proposal has no chance of ever becoming reality precisely for the reason you stated. Rather, I was envisioning the participants of NT as if we were empowered to come up with something sane to elect a Speaker. What would we put into place?
I disagree. I think that is part of why we have the clown show we have now. It cultivates an environment that puts a party's ideological goals over the good of the country while also increasing partisanship. What we have now, in other words. Extremists, which are usually the minority, get outsized control.
By being forced to vote for someone in the other party would have the effect of bringing everything more towards the center. Anyone who had hopes of being Speaker could not promote anything too extreme in during their tenure or no one from the other party would vote for them. Beyond the Speakership, though, the hoped for effect would be that it would pull all of the House closer to the center.
Why?
I mean, I'm not certain drawing the winner is the best solution but I think it has its advantages. Primarily, no deal making. By drawing, it turns the Speakership from a position of slavery to promises made in order to get the position, to one of leadership. It takes the partisanship out of the equation, since otherwise, it is likely that whichever party has the most seats would simply choose their party member. And, like tossing a coin, each side will come out even over time.
I think a large part of why our government is such a clown show is that the rules by which congress operates aren't for the good of the country or the people but, rather, because it's a convoluted effort to concentrate power to one side or the other. It seems half of what congress spends it's time on is wrangling over rules as whichever side that has the power tries to change them to their advantage.
Congress can't be trusted to rule itself. That much is clear.
If one party nominates for the other party what we would likely see is the shittiest nominees emerging for both sides. In politics, people will eventually gravitate to tactics that are most self-serving.
Far better to have the parties nominate who they wish but then have the entire House vote and have the winner be the one who got the most votes (out of two finalists) in a quorum vote.
BTW, if this were done now, Jeffries would have been elected immediately if the GOP called a vote without getting its shit together. This would encourage them to get their shit together. Also, the recall of McCarthy likely would have NOT happened since doing so would almost certainly cause Jeffries to win the Speakership.
Because democracy never operates by a flip of the coin. The process needs to be rooted in votes by the demos.
Emphatically. Parties would not like having a different party's official in charge of congress, and nor would those constituents that fought (some cases harder than in other cases) tooth and nail to bring all the vote/voters into the congressional house for a majority. Also, committees, committee chairs, and possible committee members would be suspect and 'cooled' by a Speaker from an opposing party.
The two parties simply don't gel/mesh/blend well in this present configuration.
Finally, what specific problem does having a chance of the Speaker be from the other political party. . . does this 'method' fix?
The Speaker will promote his/her party's 'particular' wishes as they are highly probably his/her own too. And, the MAJORITY party will soon tire of being "loyal' to a disinterested Speaker in what they desire to see come about for their constituents. It is a cause for REMOVAL.
A good point, and definitely a possibility. Can you think of a solution?
I'm not sure I understand. It seems like you're saying keep what we have now? Or are you saying the final two of my proposed method?
Untrue. There's plenty of provisions for elections being decided by a "coin toss". In fact, it's used all the time, believe it or not.
I must highlight and emphasize that, this paragraph above is the gist of your theory of discussion. That is, since certain groups of the citizenry does not value government control over themselves, accordingly each and every time a SNAFU occurs in government—reorganize, reformat, reconstitute to suit.
However, these are grown men and women representatives who run to serve and should do so acceptably and responsibly. That members of one party or the other or both parties don't want to grow up does not mean we have to reinvent or 'handicap-proof' the system against idiotic treatment of it.
The system works. It is time for. . . Republicans. . . to trust themselves to let it work as it will of its own accord if they allow it.
I wish I knew how to diminish partisanship and encourage statesmanship.
What we have now is a requirement that the Speaker get a simple majority of of the quorum. I am suggesting the Speaker be the nominee (of a final two) who gets the most votes in a quorum. For example, if this were in place, Jeffries would have won the Speakership a long time ago.
I disagree in every case; a coin toss is not democracy. Given what we are talking about, I would vehemently object to the Speaker of the House being decided by a coin toss. This is way too important of a position to sidestep democracy.
It is if the method was decided upon democratically.
A coin toss will fail politically. That is, no one will be properly happy or served.
First, it is needful in congressional representative majorities to have less conflict potential with the administration in power when it's Speaker's agenda jives with the Executive.
Second, depending on the randomly selected Speaker being from an opposing party congress could stall- as the majority party could at any 'minute' decide it will not follow a leader who does not allow them or their constituents to thrive in a two-year window of service.
How many times of missed opportunity/ites by the majority to get something passed would be enough to end or suggest an end to "the Speaker Experiment"?
Finally, rebellion. There are members of congress and their constituents who would so dislike this act of bi-partisanship, that they would sabotage it. BTW, 99.99 percent of activities in Washington, DC are highly and negatively "stepped on" as its the nature of politics these days.
That is, if there is a way to corrupt a "coin toss" - somebody will find it and do it.
Is this what you wish to discuss, Drakk? If so, my position is that the final decision for who will win a contest and represent the people (directly or indirectly) should NEVER be left to mere chance.
You think we have problems with 'not my president' today? Imagine if the PotUS was chosen by a coin toss to break the tie? Well the Speaker of the House is next in line after the V.P. to be PotUS.
Bad, bad idea. Democracy should always be the result of actual votes and never a consequence of chance.
Seems to me the more important item to discuss is how to elect the Speaker when we have a situation like we have today where no nominee is able to secure a majority of the quorum.
There are solutions to this problem. If there are only two nominees possible to vote for (due to runoffs winnowing the field) then the votes will be for one of them or 'present'. Whoever gets the most votes wins. If there is a tie, they can do any number of things. One example would be to have all those voting 'present' cast a vote. Another is to revote. It is very unlikely that breaking a tie between two people would take 15 votes.
The solution is really simple. Damn! Just elect someone of their party choosing and stop the 'drama' in its next performance. How come republicans/conservatives, with all their bluster, think-tanks, opinion writers, radio and television talking heads, podcasters, "X," and whatsoever end up turning out a "soup-sandwich"?
Nancy Pelosi, bless her, is such a statesman. She makes sure she has her votes privately tallied before a public showing of it. Republicans can do the same or is that too much like a "Democrat" for their liking? What tomfoolery.
When you think about it, the republicans had a SECRET vote after two public Speaker vote disasters for Jordan. Wouldn't they have known Jordan did not stand a chance if they used the SECRET vote first?!
So the question is this: Why can't republicans/conservatives use the 'Pelosi method' it works every time for her/democrats. Nancy has never been humiliated in public over acquiring her numerous Speakerships, plural. In fact, she SURRENDERED the job to another and become Speaker Emirita. She is so honored.
Counting votes (planning) ahead of time is a 'smart' accomplishment when one wants to be and is Speaker of the House.
Indeed. Quite simple. But apparently unreachable for the current GOP House.
Not specifically, no. However, I like the idea of a coin toss (or whatever random method) because, in my opinion, it thwarts the scheming to some extent. My point concerning the coin toss and democracy is that if such a method of choosing is arrived at democratically it is, by definition, democratic. You don't agree. Fair enough.
It's actually possible, you know. It would take a pretty specific scenario, but it could happen. If I recall correctly, it has to do with the electoral college and how states choose who they are.
True, but it doesn't eliminate most of what's wrong with the current system. In such a scenario, each side could advance the most extreme candidate they felt they could get away with. More, if one side has a majority, they could advance whomever they wished. Not sure how you see this as a better solution.
In the scenario a party will naturally nominate the candidate they would most prefer as Speaker. Further, both parties have the option to nominate candidates, not just the majority.
The better solution IMO is that the nominees are winnowed down based on the votes received until there are only two. Then the nominee with the most votes wins.
This encourages the parties to put forth their best candidates and also to make their nominations cohesive. It is much better to put forth one nominee that the entire party would support than to offer several. And if the majority party cannot get its act together, the minority party has the opportunity (via a cohesive vote) to elect the Speaker.
If there is a democratic vote to move the system to a monarchy, is that democracy? I see it as a democratic vote to kill democracy.
Democrats simply don't do this kind of thing! Why? Because it's unreasonable.
I guess that's where you lose me. If I understand you correctly, regardless of the division within a party, whomever garners the most votes within that party is the candidate. So, one candidate from each party being the only possible Speakers. Do you really think the minority party's candidate has a chance in hell of winning? I see your solution as simply ignoring the minority party.
I must be missing something, since what you are saying seems to represent current conditions. Perhaps if you listed your process step by step, as I did in my first post. Right now, I understand your position to be:
I assume you speak of the current reality rather than my proposed solution. If so, I don't see this as a counter to partisanship. Rather, I see it as forcing minority party members to submit to the majority.
In my proposal, the Speaker would hold their position knowing that the opposition put them there and that they need them in order to get anything done. Further, while that person may not be the person their own party would have wanted, at least they were in that party. The Speaker would have a built in interest in bipartisanship.
Again, I don't understand. If I understand your position, cohesiveness on the part of a party would be irrelevant, since it is simply a matter of who got the most votes. They don't need to "get their act together". The only way I see a minority candidate getting elected is a majority voter voting for that candidate as punishment of their own party.
Again, if you put forth your proposal, step by step as I did, I would find it helpful.
Not remotely the same.
If this played out in today's environment, we would see 212 votes for Jeffries and 200 or so votes for the R nominee with about 20 'present' votes.
As noted, the key difference in the above from our current process is that when we are down to two nominees, the only allowed votes are for one of the nominees or 'present'. The winner is the nominee who gets the most votes.
Now, if I no longer attempt to work from what you proposed, I would suggest the following:
You do not see that concept preserved in what I offered?? If Jeffries was elected (continuing with this very real example) do you not see him realizing that he holds the position by a minority and that he needs to appeal to those of the opposition to get things done?
I was saying that it is in the best interest of a party to put forth nominees (ideally one) that they will all (or mostly all) support. If the majority party does this, then they will be able to force elect their nominee. If not, a cohesive minority might be able to elect their nominee. Again, using the same example, the Ds are cohesive (Jeffries) but the Rs cannot find a candidate that would garner 212 votes. In this case, Jeffries would be the Speaker since he got more votes than anyone else of (all) nominees.
Um, no, not really. Perhaps I'm still not quite understanding but it seems all your method consists of is eliminating the requirement for the majority of the House to select a Speaker and, instead, simply chosen by whomever gets the most votes. Jeffries would only get the speakership due to the disorganization of the Republicans, not from any bipartisan support or intent. If so, Jeffries would almost certainly face a motion to vacate the second he finished being sworn into the position. If the Republicans took down one of their own, I don't see them hesitating to do so to the opposing party. The only way I see that not happening is if he actually needed opposition party members to vote for him, which pretty much means keeping the system already in place.
The difference I see between your idea and mine is that mine essentially has one party voting for the opposition party member they think they could most likely work with as Speaker while yours seems geared towards forcing party cohesion so they can ensure the Speaker is from their party.
I'm not saying your idea is wrong or bad. It just seems to have a different goal.
Yes, but with the stipulation that there are only two nominees (one per party) and that the only vote is for one of the nominees or 'present':
I put forth the steps per your request. And then to be doubly clear, I summarized. ⇡
Jeffries would get the speakership because he has more support in the House than any other nominee.
Like I said in my first post, your idea is rational but it is contrary to political reality. You will simply not find Republicans nominating Ds who might win and Democrats nominating Rs who might win. They just are not going to do that.
The parties are going to always seek a Speaker who best represents their interests and that will almost always be a member of their own party. What I propose goes with that natural flow but then rewards cohesion. And rewarding cohesion is logical because the Speaker in a bipartisan environment who has the strongest base of supporters is in the best position to be effective.
Yes, I got that. I made the statement you are responding to with that assumption.
I know. My idea would have to be forced upon the House in some way as they would never have the moral courage to do it themselves.
Well, again, yes, within a specific definition of "effective". It may be effective in solidifying cohesiveness within the parties and effective in the majority party controlling the House but, other than that, I don't see it creating, or even promoting, bipartisanship. Rather, I see it as just continuing what we already have. Both parties doing all they can to exclude the other whenever possible.
This was a good conversation. I think we've covered it pretty thoroughly, though. I don't really have anything new to add so, unless you do, I think I'm done with this topic. Have a good one.
Same to you Drakk.
Another solution would be for one ideology to hold a 2/3 majority. This is what the democrat's did for a couple of years during the Obama administration.
May I offer a counter proposal?
Only the majority party gets to choose the Speaker.
If we did that McCarthy would have been chosen on the first vote and we would never have to take another.
... they better hurry.
Yes-- but then we'd have someone like McCarthy as Speaker!
(The guy is such a total nightmare that even a substantial body of Republicans adamently oppose him!)
So-- how to solve the problem? Even if you are solidly Republican and conservative (not that that there's anything wrong with that)-- do this one time-- in the next election vote a straight Democratic ticket-- no matter who the candidates are!
Then maybe some of the more "mentally challenged" members of the House might finally figure out what's going on!!!
We had someone on here recently recommend that Republicans nominate Asa Hutchinson for Speaker. There is just about zero chance of that happening, but I can guarantee you that if he was nominated every single democrat, whether they liked him or not, would vote against him.
Nancy trained them (Seig Heil!) The dems want the chaos. They plan to campaign with it next year.
O good Lord, repubs are reaping what they sowed. All this pass the buck stuff is well passed the use by date.
It seems that Biden is reaping it. His spending, as a matter of fact all spending, has come to an end.
I recommended Asa Hutchinson in response to your question on who would be a good GOP Speaker.
There is no chance of that happening, but that does not change my position on who I would like to see as Speaker. I can think of a number of good human beings who would be excellent GOP Speakers but the current MAGA-Trump-infused GOP prevents that from happening.
Sometimes one needs to just acknowledge that their party is at fault. The GOP has failed to elect a Speaker; blaming the Ds is denying reality.
No, the dems are taking advantage of the Republican rift. They voted with the 8 Republicans that they hate to take down McCarthy and as I said they would do the same to defeat any one of those people you think would make excellent Speakers.
blaming the Ds is denying reality.
When the government can't spend money anymore others will see it too.
The Ds are behaving just as the Rs would behave. They could cooperate with the Rs but they will not.
Given.
But the lack of a Speaker is primarily the failing of the GOP; it holds the majority.
It is counterproductive to fail to see the wrong in your party and only see the wrong in the opposition.
People who elected the current House majority are reaping it and Hell bent on making everyone else do the same. A tad of honesty would tame my responses.
Lol, no, some might be happy with the House closed.
Every nation, even the 'We are No.1', have a herd of similar idiots.
As is proven by the last 2 elections.
First, your perspective on what makes an "excellent speaker" is certainly debatable. Second, Democrats did not want McCarthy because his interviews tagged him as a back-stabbing SOB who would betray democrats even when and after they agree or assist him-personally.
I find it offensive that you don't know about how McCarthy stiff-armed the democrats even while implying he could use their support to keep his speakership. Or, you're being disingenuous in dismissing such McCarthy behavior for GOP gaslighting purposes.
The relevant video (of McCarthy "laying down fire against the democrats before his ouster") is below.
First: I NEVER called McCarthy an "excellent speaker."
Second: I am certain that if democrats were allowed to vote their conscience, many of them would have supported McCarthy.
Third: He worked with democrats to pass a funding bill.
Last but not least: The democrats might be enjoying this right now but come next month they will be getting antsy about getting the House going again.
In the meantime, the government will not be spending those hard-earned tax dollars.
Some might be happy with the House being temporarily unserviceable to the people of the country, but there is a lack of prevention services which are not taking place in the national body that can cost a greater share of cure in the future! We must never forget the lessons learned from past mistakes, or face doom repeating them.
I never stated you said McCarthy was a great speaker-but since you bring it up, you never stated he was NOT a good speaker either. Second, you don't get to second-guess (speculate) about what Democrats' conscience is capable of deciding since you are are GOP 'beyond' in your partisanship.
Third, the work Kevin McCarthy did with democrats belies his behavior in going out to the public and denigrating and lying on them on Face The Nation. I presented the video fact of his 'fatal' transgression the day before the vote was held for his ouster. You failed to comment on it. Why? GOP 'beyond' partisanship.
Last: The democrats are not enjoying watching the GOP hang the congress and the nation out in the public square in shame. Israel and Ukraine are the public face of that shame. Who knows what could break out around the world 'tomorrow' and a broken/handicapped House is unable to respond to it.
In the meantime, a GOP congress that will not elect a proper speaker is a disaster.
You know that is somewhat akin to the practice of winner-takes-all in the electoral college (for 48 states).
I consider that to be a terrible practice; the electoral college system would be substantially improved if all 50 states were proportional so that electoral college votes were tied to congressional wins and not to state wins.
So, in the same spirit, the idea that the minority does not even have a vote for Speaker is not something I would support.
Small population states like Idaho, Wyoming and Montana get the exact same two senatorial seat electors per state as New York and California which is patently undemocratic and unfair. This is bad enough regarding legislation, but ridiculous for POTUS...
There is a reason for that. Heavily populated states would determine every election. Population is reflected in the House of Representatives. State sovereignty is reflected in the US Senate. I'm sorry that a state like California, which now has almost 30% of its population foreign born, wasting so many votes, but until the rules is changed via a Constitutional Amendment, that is the way the cookie crumbles.
So, in the same spirit, the idea that the minority does not even have a vote for Speaker is not something I would support.
I'm not surprised.
That is balanced out in the House.
There were very good constitutional reasons for allowing all states two Senators. It is based on the principle of Federalism — where each State is significant in and of itself. Small population states will have (typically) a single elector representing the population as opposed to populous states like New York with 26 districts (and thus electors). But all states get two electors due to being states.
Those who do not strongly support our Federated Constitutional Republic are typically against States being represented in and of themselves. People see things differently.
Bottom line, the founding principle of Federalism is almost certainly NOT going to change.
What I propose would have the electoral college correlate with the House and the Senate. It would be the same system.
Do you have a problem with the House being proportional to population and the Senate representing states?
I have no problem with that.
Then why would you have a problem with the exact same representation be reflected in our electoral college system?
Isn't that what we have?
No.
Our current electoral system has 48 out of the 50 states employing a winner-takes-all. So all those congressional districts who voted for the loser have their votes flipped and now they count for the winner.
What I propose is that all 50 states use a proportional system where the losers still get credit for the districts they won.
This would then exactly match the representation we see in Congress. The districts are represented.
Ok, now I see what you want.
I'm not sure what to think of that.
It will never happen, but I find it to be an elegant (and consistent) way to get a more accurate representation for the presidential vote.
On top of that, I propose we eliminate the electoral college entirely and simply tally electoral votes by won districts and then won states. Simple. No need for human electors, meetings, etc. Each district casts an electoral vote and each state casts two electoral votes. Add them up. Done.
Getting rid of the human electors would be a plus.
I think so. They no longer serve any purpose.
In the last two Presidential elections they were a source of controversy with people trying to influence them.
At a $Billion+ enrollment/graduation fees are a tad high for such a 'woke' institution.
And if extremists are in control of the party?
Not a bad idea, Drak...The problem would be to get the circus we call congress to take off their clown costumes and try to think and actually work for the American public.
Thanks. It only is offered as a solution for deciding the Speakership and doesn't do a lot to solve the rest of the problem, but it would be my hope that over time, it would pull the House away from the extremes and more towards the center.
Right now, what I see as the problem is that neither side is concerned with what the people want or need but, rather, attaining power so that they can impose what their party wants. More specifically, "the people" are not some homogenous entity, but are a pretty diverse group. Neither party cares about that. Rather, we hear all of them say "the American people want" as if we're all identical and all desire the same things. They just say that because it gives the illusion they are speaking for "the people".
The reason I came up with this idea about how to elect a Speaker is that I think it would force the house towards the center, at least a little. I think we need to find similar solutions for the entire government. Solutions that force our elected officials to take all the people into account. I don't mean find solutions that will satisfy everyone, since that is impossible but, rather, compromise. Then, it needs to be put into the Constitution, because it's clear something like Congress can't be trusted to rule itself.
I actually have concluded that parties say "the people" to mean their specific set of constituents. And so, both parties do care about their constituents—if only them. The trick here is to get each party to care about the other. That 'method' has been loss on the way to extremism.
Compromise. It's what works in community. This notion that the country should dismiss/discount/drown-out/wage political and cultural wars against its own citizens through electing officials (and having think-tanks that set-up and promote division between the citizenry by pitting it against itself) is the real problem.
Perhaps the houses of Congress and the courts, these two in particular. could have an easier time of it internally, if the "back home" members of the constituencies would let them work for the good and make reasonable choices without the microscopic lens hovering over them to pick them apart and the litany of radio/tv anchors who live to become famous for taking down/out a congressperson or senator.
Finally, if we want congress to RETURN TO COMPROMISE - then PROMOTE COMPROMISE!
Want a fix for the House/Congress? Fix its voting public. Here's how: We need a GRAND VISION for the nation. A path/direction we can all happily and courageously pursue. When we sow together- we reap together!
I have been observing this math; is it 'fuzzy'? 10 to 3 to 1 and back to 2? What am I missing?
The Speaker's role is open to both parties now as it is. That is, both political sides can contend for the job of Speaker, though it is traditional for the party numerically to assume its own gets the job (for obvious reasons). The representatives could vote for Speaker using secret ballots! Of course they will not for two reasons: 1. Their constituents would call them 'fools.' 2. The shock of getting a less than desirable but real 'character' in the Speaker's role.