The House of Representatives is currently experiencing a sit in by Democratic representatives demanding a vote be taken on some gun control legislation. This thread is not to debate the specific legislation in question or gun control in general. My question has to do with why Republicans don’t want to hold votes on issues that they are opposed to rather than holding a vote and voting no. What is the difference between the two? The Garland nomination to the SCOTUS in the senate is another example. What is the advantage to Republicans in refusing to hold a vote rather than voting no?
I would guess one of three issues (or a mixture)
- The “vulnerable” members of the party don’t want to be on record voting against it
- Lack of confidence in party unity - with the possibility being that some members of the party will cross the floor
- A vote means a debate? Which shows up the stupidity of the republican position?
I think part of it is a simple control issue. The GOP, as the majority party, controls the agenda. They do not want to allow that power to be usurped by the minority party. I suspect this would hold true on any subject, but particularly on controversial matters.
If they vote no, the Dems can run ads saying “X voted against gun control right after the biggest mass shooting in history” etc. in the next election.
The question you should ask is what advantage is it to Republicans to hold a vote? It benefits them in no way to have a vote on the issue.
If you are the majority party you willingly have a vote for only two reasons:
- To pass a bill that you want and that you think will become law by passing in the other house; or
- To send a message to your constituents (repealing Obamacare, for instance).
Neither of these applies in this case.