Skip to main content

View Diary: The bit of reality behind the Myth of 60 (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  1-2 seats would be exactly correct. I don't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, EricS

    get all the folks who seem to feel like we are entitled to +3 seats each?  Ummm, y'all, I'm sorry, and believe me I dislike Republicans more than most folks but that is just randomly puntative (not that they don't deserve it) and mathematically incorrect.

    On a 17 seat committee like HS, here are the possible options:

    8 (R) and 9 (D) = 42%(R) and 52%(D).  

    Option 1:
    7(R) and 10 (D) = 41%(R) and 59%(D)

    Option 2:
    6(R) and 11 (D) = 35%(R) and 65%(D)

    Now.  I can understand wanting Option #2, but it's really not fair and we'd be screaming bloody murder if OUR minority caucus was given 35% of the committee seat allocation.  

    But I think Option 1, which is what the committee composition looked like back the last time we had a 58/42 split is fair and reasonable and certainly doesn't appear to be "caving" or whatnot.  And I'd bet $10 that's about how it looks for the 111th.

    We have a 57 seat majority -- 57% of the seats, with 2 aligned independants.  We are not entitled to more than that mathematically or in terms of fairness.

    I don't know who started this "3-seat" meme, but it's not even remotely accurate or historically correct.

    •  Not following your math (0+ / 0-)

      (first, 8R / 9D is 47% / 53%, not 42% / 52%.  But more importantly:)

      I didn't hear Kagro or anyone else suggesting that a 5-vote majority was on the table -- rather, I heard that the options in play are either a 2-seat vs. 3-seat majority, with Rs willing to accept the former but threatening to filibuster the organizing resolution to prevent the latter.


      Option 1: drop one R seat from HS, so it becomes 9D and 7R

      Option 2: drop one R seat and add one D seat, so it becomes 10D and 7R.

      So in other words, as I read the diary, your Option 1 (the 10-7 split which you regard as eminently reasonably) is precisely what the Rs are threatening to filibuster to prevent.

      •  yes, actually dropping a seat entirely is (0+ / 0-)

        overlooked in my note, but it's a reasonable option although one not often used.

        And correct, 47%/53% -- you'll note that favors the democrats, since we only (barely) hold 51% of the seats.

        They can threaten all they want, but the net CHANGE on the Option #1 (7/10 split vs 8/9 split) is only -1/+1.

        It's not a +2 change, it's +1 change.  

        The resulting balance would be a +3 majority, but that's moot.

        The arguement McConnell is making (if he is in fact making that arguement) would seem to fly in the face of past Republican majorities and thus I would say he's got some "'splaining" to do.

        I think the BS meme that roll call is pushing is that the GOP could filibuster if we decided to push for the 35%/65% allocation ( 6/11 for example ) which is theoretically true, but difficult even for the Republicans to actually pull off.

        So in that case (if we were looking to give ourselves a +4 gain, for example) then it would be different.

        But this is a precedent-established, normal, vanilla situation.  I really doubt that is what McConnell's really got his panties in a wad about.

        •  I think the problem is in the terms you're using (0+ / 0-)

          When Roll Call, or most people on this thread, use the term +3 they are not referring to the additional Ds from today, they are referring to the margin on a given committee.  Thus, 10-7 is a "+3 committee."  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site