“It’s the majority, stupid…but, should it be?”
A campaign strategist for Bill Clinton, named James Carville, coined the phrase “The economy, stupid,” which became more popularly phrased as “It’s the economy, stupid” in the successful 1992 presidential campaign against president George Herbert Walker Bush. It became a popular opposition rallying cry against a sitting Republican president that was experiencing prestige on the international stage following the successful 1991 global coalition and subsequent military campaign against Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein. The point accentuated was that the president wasn’t in touch with what mattered most to the majority of Americans, the economy. But, is what matters most to the ‘majority’ truly what is paramount and if so, who exactly is this ‘majority’?
When is having a majority really of any consequence? Well, based on our ‘Democratic experience’ the most familiar topic where having a majority counts is voting. We are after all a ‘Democratic’ country where the maxim ‘majority rules’ is the communal answer to issues of division or controversy. But, what exactly is a ‘majority’ anyway? And does it even matter what exactly it is? The short answer is yes, “It’s the majority, stupid”. Take for example last week’s failure by the GOP to secure enough ‘majority’ consensuses to submit the American Health Care Act (AHCA) before the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. Their political opponents are applauding this failure as a devastating defeat. After all, the GOP has a ‘majority’ in the House, a ‘majority’ in the Senate and is currently in charge of the White House as well. That’s a triple ‘majority’ politically speaking. If the Republicans had the ‘majority’ why didn’t they have the ‘majority’ votes to push ahead with their ‘Repeal and Replace” platform? Well, the obvious answer is that a ‘majority’ is relative isn’t it?
According to the rules in the United States Congress (both the House of Representatives and the Senate for most bills) all that is needed is a ‘simple majority’. Therefore, the amount of votes needed for the AHCA to be passed by the GOP would be a percentage of either 51% or a 50/50 deadlock whereby the Vice President would cast the deciding vote. This particular vote didn’t materialize due to a lack of support among moderate and conservative Republicans who refused for reasons not relevant to this article to compromise. The number needed would have been 216 of the available 430 congressional seats (five are currently vacant, four Republican and one Democrat). But, everyone who understands the American political system also understands that the bill would also have to go to the Senate and be scrutinized, amended and voted on a second time. How many votes would be necessary to pass it in the Senate? You guessed it, a simple majority. But, what is a simple majority? Is it in fact 51% such as is the case in Congress?
By most accounts a “majority” in American and Canadian usage is “more than half of a total number or amount; the larger part of something.”[1] However, interestingly enough a ‘simple majority’ is less than half of the total votes cast but more than the minimum required to win, as when there are more than two candidates or choices.”[2] But, should this be the case on matters of such momentous importance such as the health care system of the greatest country in the world, that a ‘majority’ is the measure to judge what could arguably be not really a ‘majority’ at all?
The United States is in fact a Republic represented by individuals whose station is to argue and negotiate on matters of importance to whom? You guessed it, the majority of their constituents. The flaws in ‘majority rules’ have long been realized which is why the existence of an Electoral College is critical to the average of the nation’s voting. The nation’s most visible executive leader isn’t elected based on ‘majority rules’ in its purest form but rather by a pre-determined number of votes in the Electoral College. Why then do similar checks and balances not exist in the singularly most important voting institution that falls under the Constitution, the Legislature? Is it time for a change?
Rewind to October 8th, 2009, the 111th Congress passed what is arguably the most controversial piece of legislation since the American Civil War, House Bill H.R. 3590, the Affordable Care Act or ‘Obamacare’. The vote was 219 in favor to 212 against or 51% of the 431 voting members. It can be argued that the ‘majority ruled’ as the bill went on to the United States Senate which at the time also was under the Democratic Party ‘majority’ with 58% of the seats where it also passed by ‘majority rule’ on December 24th, 2009. So ‘majority ruled’ and that’s how it should be, right?
Perhaps, but in the next midterm elections of November 2nd, 2010 the Democrats were abruptly bounced from their ‘majority’ in the House of Representatives as the Republicans gained 63 seats in the worst political shellacking in 72 years. The next election in the Senate would deliver similar staggering statistics as the GOP took over control of the Senate for the first time in almost a decade and gained the largest number of seats of either party in 35 years. In fact, it was the first time in 97 years that the Democrats lost control of the Senate in a sixth-year midterm election. Was the Democratic ‘majority’ consensus that led the 100% partisan voting in 2009 a true ‘majority’ or was it something else? Something that is less obvious but, perhaps more ominous? Was it the inability for elected politicians to support a true majority? The majority being that of their constituents whom they are supposed to represent as opposed to their party bosses and affiliations. Did their ‘It’s the majority, stupid’ themes have repercussions? Arguably the current president was elected to reverse what Americans viewed as government overreach. So, is it in fact the reversal view of ‘It’s the majority, stupid’ that is taking place in modern national politics?
There are of course times where a ‘simple majority’ should be the rule and there are obvious benefits to a quick and clean decision. We see it in our judicial system everyday. For civil cases the burden of proof by a jury is a ‘simple majority’ or ‘the preponderance of the evidence’. However, what about issues of grave importance that need to be incontrovertibly balanced and decided upon merit and value? Should such cases like billions of dollars in spending, healthcare insurance and tax reform still be decided by a ‘majority rules’ system. Not so in the case of the judicial branch where the penalties of the verdict are exponentially greater. When individual liberties and life or death can be in the balance then the burden of proof becomes an ‘absolute majority’ or ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
Perhaps there should be a compromise in voting where there are the ‘Ayes’ the ‘Nays’ and the ‘Maybes’ or the ‘hell-if-I-knows’? To remove or mitigate partisan politics and preserve objective thinking and argument it might be better to develop a partial version of ‘majority rules’ that can be submitted, debated, amended and finally voted upon or ratified. I don’t propose to know what this might look like but I’d sure like you opinion. Regardless, I think that ultimately our greatest political and wartime ally of the twentieth century across the Atlantic had it right. Revered statesman Sir Winston Churchill might have said it best in one of his iconic quotes: “Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
What are your thoughts?
