#### 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:

Current:
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.

i.e.,

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.