r/politics • u/slaysia • Dec 19 '17

Democrat wins Va. House seat in recount by single vote; creating 50-50 tie in legislature

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrat-wins-va-house-seat-in-recount-by-single-vote-creating-50-50-tie-in-legislature/2017/12/19/3ff227ae-e43e-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.82f2b85b50fa
64.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.0k

u/Grenshen4px Dec 19 '17 edited Dec 20 '17

Motto for the future:

EVERY VOTE FUCKING COUNTS

1.1k

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Yup, because of a single vote, the GOP lost control of the House of Delegates for the whole state. I'm going to have to look up how they're going to function with no majority. Odd numbers people! Use them.

291

u/Grenshen4px Dec 19 '17

I'm going to have to look up how they're going to function with no majority.

They still have the senate had the senate been up this year it would probably had flipped blue. Since they last had elections in 2015 for the state senate its going to be two years until then.

211

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Right, but the House of Delegates has no provision for breaking ties. So it's possible they'll deadlock a lot and be unable to pass things at all.

461

u/SuperCool101 Dec 19 '17

Or maybe they'll be forced to work in, gasp, a bipartisan manner!

155

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

That's theoretically why we've allowed the Filibusterer for so long in the Senate. It's not exactly been working out for us :(.

8

u/foxden_racing Dec 20 '17

Eh. The filibuster is fine, the problem is that they all decided that actually filibustering was hard work, and decided to change the rules to give every single senator veto power.

The Filibuster, as designed, is one of those things that's supposed to be so serious you stake your career on it because making the news for shutting down the legislature over something has a very strong chance of pissing off the people able to vote on you. It's you saying "This matter is so goddamned important that it's worth grinding the entire legislature to a halt over", and you believe so strongly in it that you're willing to take a stand that forgoes food, sleep, even toilet breaks until one of three things happens: You back down, they back down, or you annoy so many senators that they collectively make you back down (via a Cloture Motion, which requires a 2/3rds majority).

The problem is, it's also hard work. To actually Filibuster, you have to be granted the floor and then refuse to return it when your allotted time is up. If you leave the floor, stop talking for more than a certain period of time, etc...game over. The floor gets returned, and business continues as usual.

So, during GW's term, a bunch of powerful senators got together and decided to change the rules. That's too much like work, so instead now all a senator has to do is declare their "intention" to filibuster, they skip actually seizing the floor/etc and go straight to a Cloture motion. If that can't pass, the measure dies immediately.

It theoretically saves everyone a ton of time, but it also has three side effects: one, Filibusters become trivial, something that requires no skin in the game, no risk, and no effort. Two, it means that a Filibuster can't be busted by the person doing it giving up.

Three, and most importantly, it effectively gives every single senator the power to unilaterally kill an order of business, be it a bill, a nomination, whatever. While not technically identical, it's close enough for government work (HA!) to call it the same as senators having veto power...a power that's supposed to be reserved for the POTUS. Getting 67 votes in the senate on anything is effectively impossible given how deeply partisan it's become, so in practice "I intend to filibuster" is no different from "I veto this bill".

That's the bullshit that needs to go, but don't ever expect a body able to change its rules in its own self-interest to ever make things harder on themselves.

3

u/blue_2501 America Dec 20 '17

That's the bullshit that needs to go, but don't ever expect a body able to change its rules in its own self-interest to ever make things harder on themselves.

It's very very easy to change. Only the majority is needed to change the rules, but it has to be done at the beginning of the year.

Harry Reid was too chickenshit to change it throughout Obama's legacy. It would have been fine to change it to the old "Mr. Smith-style" filibuster. The GOP generally doesn't have the passion to uphold filibusters like that.

2

u/foxden_racing Dec 20 '17

It's an easy change, but not one either party is going to willingly choose unless they think they can weaponize it by having a super-majority and holding it down for a term or two. They simply don't want it used against them for as long as having it used against them seems plausible.

18

u/Tank3875 Michigan Dec 19 '17 edited Dec 19 '17

That's only because they lowered the number of votes to break it recently from a supermajority to a simple majority.

Edit: I was thinking about them doing it in cases of nominations. Oopsie Daisy. Still don't understand why it isn't used, though.

18

u/xiaodown Dec 19 '17

No; if you're thinking about the health care plan and the tax bill, where the magic number was 50, it is a senate rule that says that if the bill is still in the reconcilliation process, it only needs 50 votes.

With the health care repeal bill and tax bill, this was done by first attaching an amendment that contained reconcilliation instructions to the 2017 budget, IIRC. There are rules as to what can be a reconcilliation bill, and the byrd rule is also in effect. But, tl;dr: they're using the existing rules that are intended to fix up little things here and there to instead pass massive legislation while claiming that it's budget-neutral so as not to trigger Byrd.

They did invoke the Nuclear Option (setting the cloture motion threshold at a simple majority instead of a 3/5ths majority, i.e. 50 instead of 60) in order to put Gorsich on the supreme court.

3

u/blue_2501 America Dec 20 '17

This is Harry Reid's biggest failing: being scared shitless to change or remove the filibuster while his enemies are unafraid to do so the moment they can push something through.

Thanks, Harry, for fucking up Congress to a perpetual filibuster stall while you had a Democrat in the White House.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

You talking the 67 to 60 change?

Or was there some recent removal of the Filibusterer I'm not aware of? (I'm pretty sure I would have noticed)

2

u/Tank3875 Michigan Dec 19 '17

I was thinking of the change to nomination passing majority needed.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Yup, Democrats did that awhile back because the Republicans were abusing the filibusterer to stop every Obama nominee. Republicans took it the next step and removed it for SCOTUS nominees. Still in place for legislation, but there are ways around it through budget reconciliation. The Fillabuster is waning, largely because we (and by we, I mean the problem is 95% republican and 5% democrat) can't compromise.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/DrKronin Dec 20 '17

I think it might work better if the geriatric millionaires actually had to stand up and talk the entire time rather than just threatening to.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

100% agree. And, they have to hold 41 people in the Senate the entire time, as soon as they have 40 or less, cloture motion passes, and it's time to vote on the bill. However, no other business can be done during the fillabuster, so it's still an effective tactic.

4

u/aquarain I voted Dec 19 '17

That boat has sailed.

12

u/Who_Decided Dec 19 '17

I would absolutely hope they wouldn't, since the GOP has essentially been the party of Disney villains this entire year. Working with evil is not a quality I want in my representatives.

8

u/KallistiTMP Dec 20 '17 edited 2d ago

connect familiar dependent encourage abundant glorious violet sharp sheet vast

5

u/Who_Decided Dec 20 '17

I agree. Conservatives are 100% necessary. Fortunately neoliberals exist. Now if only we had progressives.

1

u/PraiseBeToScience Dec 20 '17

We have one. The Democrats. We need a left party.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Gaston 2020!

Noooooooo ooooooooone creates jobs like Gaston, balances budgets like Gaston. He’s especially good at deeeeleeegating.

4

u/fgejoiwnfgewijkobnew Dec 19 '17

Working with evil is not a quality I want in my representatives.

I know you mean the Republicans but I want abstract this. Working with evil is a necessary evil to accomplish good in the world of politics. There are very few Bernie Sanders out there and even he will work with his enemies to advance his agenda. Game theory is going to dictate that sometimes you'll need to team up with evil to accomplish good (eg the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of situations).

1

u/Who_Decided Dec 20 '17

Working with evil is a necessary evil to accomplish good in the world of politics.

People keep saying that. I keep wondering how true it is and by what reasoning people arrive at that conclusion. In the mythology that fills my American history books, we don't work with villains. We put them down.

Game theory is going to dictate that sometimes you'll need to team up with evil to accomplish good (eg the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of situations).

Less frequently than occurs, I guarantee it. Plus, if you've played that Evolution of Trust minigame, you know what happens when the population of people who always betray grows too high.

1

u/wytrabbit Dec 20 '17

If you've ever played Risk or http://www.conquerclub.com/ you'll know that sometimes it can be highly advantageous to use your enemies to defeat other enemies. If you go all out and refuse to yield any battles, you'll find yourself in a losing war because all you've done is served to unite your enemies against you. Play it smart, win the battles that will further your agenda the most and yield the ones that set you back the least.

2

u/Who_Decided Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17

I think we're saying the same thing but using different scopes of measurement. I'm saying that working with them increases the round-over-round probability that your environment will eventually be dominated by them based on their strategy. Since that is disadvantageous to you, it follows for me that the best strategy is to prevent that.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/smoothtrip Dec 19 '17

In this environment? Not likely.

2

u/Medium_Well_Soyuz_1 Illinois Dec 19 '17

Everyone’s looking at numbers, but all it would take to earn a simple majority is one Blue Dog Democrat or RINO

2

u/fgejoiwnfgewijkobnew Dec 19 '17

Isn't it more likely a Democrat or Republican gets wooed by the other party and defects? You know both parties are scrambling to recruit anyone they can to their side right now.

1

u/PraiseBeToScience Dec 20 '17

If that happens it'll be a GOP flipping to Dem. A big giant blue wave is already here, you'd have to be the worst politician in history to prematurely jump off that wave.

2

u/Rubbersoulrevolver Dec 20 '17

that assumes, gasp, republicans are interested in governing.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

What’s that?

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Lately, it's when the Democrats fold on 95% of the issues and get a small bone in the legislation.

1

u/man_on_a_screen Dec 20 '17

fuck that shit

1

u/snowflakelib Virginia Dec 19 '17

Yeah, a tie may end up being a good thing. You know your bill will be thrown out if you don't get at least one person from the other side.

1

u/PraiseBeToScience Dec 20 '17

Shit never gets done in a tie. How much more gridlock do we have to live through before we finally drop childish ideas like split governments are the most productive and ideal scenario?

1

u/snowflakelib Virginia Dec 20 '17

I didn't say it would be the most productive or that it was ideal. It's better than 51-49 republicans and certainly better than 66-34 republicans though.

1

u/stun Dec 19 '17

The scarlet letter ‘C’ for ‘Compromise’.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Bipartisan corporate shills working together to fleece the morons who believe that the system works so long as their party is the one in charge.

1

u/greeneyedguru Dec 20 '17

Or maybe they'll just rely on Dems caving per the norm.

-4

u/sl600rt Wyoming Dec 19 '17

If only either party knew what that was.

Democrats seem to think it means the republicans give them a little of what they want now. In exchange for getting nothing 8n return besides not having to give them dems all of what they want.

66

u/socialistbob Dec 19 '17

Only if everything is straight party line votes. There will probably be a lot of people crossing party lines to get better deals. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are probably making lists right now and trying to get members of the other party to switch caucuses. Ralph Northam was actually targeted by the Republicans when he was in the VA Senate trying to get him to switch parties.

9

u/KuriboShoeMario Dec 20 '17

Anyone leaving the left in Virginia in the current climate is asking to not be re-elected. The people of Virginia just spent an off-year telling the GOP to eat a sack of dicks, they will utterly shred anyone who bolts for them now.

8

u/socialistbob Dec 20 '17

I don't see any Democrats switching parties at the moment but I could see some of them voting with the Republicans on some issues. Redistricting won't occur until post 2020 and these delegates are up for reelection in 2019 often times in very conservative districts.

That said Republicans who narrowly won reelection are going to know that they will be targets in 2019 and the Republican senators will see the Dems winning big in their districts. I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican senator or two decides to either caucus with the Dems or take a nice cushy job in the Northam administration thus triggering a special election.

5

u/TheBitterSeason Dec 20 '17

I'm sure he's fucking glad he didn't take that offer.

2

u/SuramKale Dec 19 '17

“Cross party lines” is what you mean I think.

8

u/snowflakelib Virginia Dec 19 '17

The Lt. Gov has the tie breaking vote in the state senate, but there is not a mechanism for ties in the House of Delegates, so the legislation does not proceed.

3

u/showmeurknuckleball Dec 19 '17

Hm you're right, this is America so compromise and collaboration are not options.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

No, the Dems encountered this in 1998. They didn't seat new members until a speaker was chosen.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Sounds like North Carolina GOP.

1

u/MuuaadDib Dec 19 '17

If they stop pitching stupid shit they can get shit done, stop being Mr. Burns and start giving a damn RNC.

1

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia Dec 20 '17

This has happened before in VA, and it was fine. You'd be surprised how much regional considerations come into play on most big votes. Some stuff will break down on mostly party lines, but not nearly all.

1

u/Blondecanary Dec 20 '17

Yeah they do.

The lieutenant governor presides over the Senate in 25 states. In all but one of the states, the lieutenant governor is able to break ties. A lieutenant governor’s vote broke organizational deadlocks in Idaho (1990) and Pennsylvania (1992). It’s since been reorganized for VA but pretty sure they still have a process.

This one amused me:

Coin toss. In Wyoming, a coin toss is the preferred method for tie breaking. It was used to determine the winner of individual seats as well as to help untie a chamber in 1974. Lieutenant governor's vote.

2

u/-rosa-azul- Virginia Dec 20 '17

The Lieutenant Governor breaks ties in the VA senate, but not the state house. There isn't a mechanism for breaking ties in the house, and this has happened before (1997). After that election, the two parties had to get together and make a power-sharing arrangement. There is no official process or tiebreaker.

1

u/Blondecanary Dec 23 '17

Okay I misunderstood / got mixed up with House and Senate (not the first time). Thanks for the correction :)

60

u/bluejams Dec 19 '17

By negotiation, also known as "the way it was supposed to be"

15

u/MrZAP17 California Dec 19 '17

I mean, it’s hard to negotiate if it means “Sure we’ll throw women under the bus if it means you’ll spend some money on schools.”

1

u/PraiseBeToScience Dec 20 '17

So defeating the Nazis, getting us out of a Great Depression, creating Social Security/Medicare/medicaid, and passing civil rights was done incorrectly? Because all that was done when liberals held so much power they didn't have to care at all what Republicans thought.

1

u/bluejams Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 22 '17

Weird username to have considering you do Zero research before posting.

Civil rights vote breakdown inclues votes on both sides.

Social Security/Medicare vote breakdown

First act in New Deal was a Bipartisan bill to CUT (so liberal) $500 Million.

Entry to WWII was supported 88-6 in the senate and All but ONE congressperson voted to go to War)

Just because one party was in charge doesn't mean they completely shut out the otherside to get things done. This is mostly a development of congress under the last 2 presidents.

7

u/Sororita Dec 19 '17

Remember, to be #1 you have to be odd.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

I kind of like that. Alternative /r/getmotivated.

7

u/ShartsAndMinds Dec 19 '17

Considering how they've been functioning with a majority, it doesn't bode well for them.

3

u/Kuckucksuhr Dec 19 '17

This has actually happened before in 1999. There will be a power-sharing agreement and negotiations for committee heads and speakership. (Although there is no mechanism to break tie votes on legislation; still needs 51)

With a 21-19 GOP majority in the Senate, but Democratic LtGov (who breaks a 20-20 tie) and Gov, there's gonna have to be a whole lot of cooperation.

2

u/Jericho_Hill Dec 19 '17

power sharing agreement . Likely former Gov Wilder acting as Speaker in such.

2

u/08mms Illinois Dec 20 '17

Power sharing agreement, not sure how that works in practice, but sounds exciting!

2

u/opentoinput Dec 20 '17

Any chance they will lose another seat?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

I think that was the last of the recounts.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Virginia is starting to trend blue. We've gone from a deep red state to a swing state to the beginnings of a liberal stronghold.

The coal country attitude is dying off here, and it's about god damn time. Thanks North Carolina/West Virginia for constantly being a neighboring example of what not to be.

2

u/RedderBarron Dec 20 '17

In 10 years this vote will become a widely circulated "fun fact"

If you wanna live in a democracy, do your part and VOTE people!

2

u/DuntadaMan Dec 19 '17

Man it's almost like people will have to learn to search for what is a good idea instead of hardlining whatever a political party wants.

1

u/RandomFactUser Dec 19 '17

Coalitions(maybe all of one party and a couple of line crossers with some benefits)

1

u/ohitsasnaake Foreign Dec 19 '17

In my country the unicameral parliament has an even number of seats, but besides a multi-party system mostly making the point about tie-breakers in an even-numbered chamber moot (majority governments being the norm, and votes are still counted so absentees don't accidentally tip a vote for the opposition), the speaker of the parliament (whichever of the primary or 2 deputy speakers is currently presiding over the debate) is expected not to vote or participate in the discussion, and are expected not to even discuss day-to-day politics with the media. The speaker is also expected to perform their duties in a nonpartisan manner.

A stark contrast to the American system.

1

u/remyseven Dec 20 '17

Actually, I don't mind most of the time if government gets locked up and can't do anything. This isn't one of those times.

1

u/prof_the_doom I voted Dec 19 '17

The way a government should, where both sides come together and discuss issues like rational adults.

1

u/dankmangos420 Dec 19 '17

One side not letting another function is not good. Regardless of what side holds the majority. This shouldn’t be an us vs. them mentality.

23

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

[deleted]

15

u/meltvariant Colorado Dec 19 '17

Especially when Dems had 54% of the aggregate vote.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

That's not even true either. Even in areas where something is a guaranteed win for one side the office of those politicians and the politician themselves use the voter record to inform policy decisions.

If you're a dem in gop areas, when they see their area leaning further into a particular issue it influences policy change, in particular over the longterm.

It matters absolutely everywhere. Every percentage point of change in a particular direction tells a politician they need to adjust their policy or continue to see that shift occur. And it does cause policy changes or shifts.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

[deleted]

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

The point is that the presidential election is not the only reason you should vote. Your vote in a district strongly held by the opposition matters more in shaping the future of long term policy legislation than someone's vote already in a strongly held state.

Being tunnel visioned on just the president is part of the problem. Demonstrating that you're a non-participator simply demonstrates that they don't need to change any policies or positions.

Voting and losing still affects policy of the party you voted against in future. Far more so than voting in already won states.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

[deleted]

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

It absolutely does contradict your point when you don't retroactively decide to imply that you understood and meant all of that in your buzzwordy statement that does nothing other than confirm to people their predisposed reasons for not bothering to vote.

You're helping absolutely nobody by putting these thoughts in people's heads. In fact, you're hurting, by keeping people home. Stop that.

Gotta question the legitimacy of a year old account with only 4 days of comment history because you delete it all. What are you hiding with all that regular deletion?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Privacy, sure. Not ops at all.

2

u/TastyLaksa Dec 19 '17

It even caused changes in my country, where there is literally no reason not to vote for the ruling party

1

u/flyingsaucerinvasion Dec 19 '17

it's funny every word order works except putting fucking after counts.

1

u/Mister_Spacely Dec 19 '17

I thought that was the motto

1

u/outkast8459 Dec 19 '17

Yes, until we take it for granted and forget again. And the cycle begins yet again.

1

u/Bitterbal95 Foreign Dec 20 '17

You know what, that might be a positive result/coincidence of all this.

That our (at least my) generation again realises the necessity of voting

1

u/peacebuster Dec 20 '17

*in swing states

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

I feel the momentum we are gonna finally start winning

1

u/blue_2501 America Dec 20 '17

VOTE EVERY YEAR, TWICE A YEAR!

Because, seriously, voting isn't something you do only when shit hits the fan. You do it every time for the rest of your life.

1

u/headrush46n2 Dec 20 '17

unless you live in massachusetts, or california, or mississippi, or like 35 other states.

But yeah, except for those cases every vote counts.

1

u/samdajellybeenie Dec 20 '17

So I have to be fucking to vote?

0

u/fireball121 Dec 20 '17

-UCK-

Dropped this