It is a phrase that we repeatedly hear — typically by the majority as a justification for the unjustifiable, but elections do have consequences.  But it’s not just who wins, but how they win.  In many parliamentary countries, there is another common phrase a “working majority.”  And the basic concept is that it is rarely enough to win by one or two seats.  When you have a one or two seat majority, it only takes one or two members deciding to walk to cost the government the majority.  And that’s in a parliamentary system where members risk forcing a new election if they defect from the government to the minority.  In the United States, there is no threat of an immediate new election hanging over members’ heads to encourage the majority to stick together.  As a result, the margin required for a working majority is somewhat larger in the U.S.

And that’s the problem that the current Democratic majority is facing.  Currently, the Democrats have a 220-212 majority in the House (which will go up to 222-213 in January when all of the vacancies are filled).  That means a mere four (now or five in January) defections means that nothing can pass.  In the Senate, the Democrats do not have an actual majority.  Even including the two independents who normally vote with the Democrats, the Senate is a 50-50 tie.  Given the Senate filibuster rules, a 50-50 Senate can only pass reconciliation bills or confirm nominees, and even that requires all fifty members of the caucus to stick together at which point the Vice-President can break a tie.

The current mess on reconciliation and election reform is the result of the lack of a working majority.  Needing every vote in the Senate requires getting the agreement of every Senator.  Thus, each Senator can insist on concessions from the rest of the party.  (It is a little harder in the House, but a group of five or more members have the same leverage).  And to be clear, the leverage is not equal.  When you need every vote, the ones who want to do less have a negotiating advantage over those who want to do more.  The reality is that something is almost always better than nothing.  So the  “moderates” can tell the “progressives” that we are willing to vote for some increased funding for child care and clean energy and expanding Medicare but not for as much increased funding as you want, and the progressives have the option of accepting some funding for needed programs or not getting those programs at all.  The only real limit to the moderates leverage is that, when it comes to needing to cut funding, progressive can counter by trying to trade off programs that they want for programs that the moderates want that progressives do not see as particularly useful.  But that is very limited leverage.  Thus, at the end of the day, the current numbers give a lot of additional power to Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Krysten Sinema of (suppoesedly) Arizona.  (The supposedly is that Senator Manchin’s positions flow from the politics of West Virginia and it is unlikely that Democrats could elect a more progressive Senator from West Virginia.  Senator Sinema’s positions on the other hand do not flow from Arizona’s politics as her fellow Senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly, who actually has to run in 2022, is not blocking current proposals.) Continue Reading...