Senate and House Obligations

Hi SD,

Not sure if Politics is a better place for this question, but I am only looking for factual answers–no political opinion.

Do Senators and House members frequently vote against the party line? Are they in complete lockstep? What institutions encourage compliance with the party?

I ask because I see so much handwringing over who gets a majority of the Senate/House, and it seems inconceivable to me that individuals elected to these offices somehow suddenly become a lock for a yes or no vote on a given issue, as if they have no will of their own anymore–just another guaranteed blue or red aye or nay.

I just don’t understand if “control of the Senate” by a particular party means they are all going to vote the exact same way? How can the media be so sure? Especially with these thin margins and the changing political climate, I can’t believe that people put so much stock in who “controls” Congress.

How often does it happen that a party holding a majority still gets thwarted?

Please enlighten me!

Thanks,

Dave

The party in control gets to nominate the leaders of that chamber (Speaker of the House in the House of Representatives, Senate Majority Leader in the Senate). That person gets to decide, among other things, what legislation will be brought to the floor for a vote, and what won’t be allowed to be voted on at all.

As to how often the majority party is thwarted, “not that often.” The party leaders and whips exert quite a bit of influence over their caucuses, and if worse comes to worse, the leader will usually pull a party-favored piece of legislation from the voting schedule if the vote is likely to fail. It does happen occasionally though; the Senate 2017 vote on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is a recent, high-profile example.

Congresspeople are free to vote any way they want, but as previously mentioned, they usually vote with their party, not against it. Some renegades are less reliable and vote however the wind blows. Still, they risk being alienated by the people and money they need to get reelected by not following the party line, not to mention risking not getting a seat on prestigious committees. Party loyalty has tangible benefits.

In the past it was much more common to vote against your party. This was especially true when the south was solidly Democratic but all those southern Dems voted consistenly against any civil rights bills. And when Lyndon Johnson helped pass one anyway, they converted to Republican in droves and have never moved back. This happened even though the Republicans of that era (maybe they should be called Eisenhower Republicans) largely supported civil rights acts too. Nowadays with the parties largely split along ideological lines, it has become much rarer not to follow your party. But two Democratic senators have broken ranks several times. The usual result is not to bring whatever it is to an actual vote.

So you are saying if I am a Republican Senator and the Senate Majority Leader sees me going against the party line such that passage of a Democrat-friendly bill would be assured if he or she brings the bill to a vote, he or she would refuse to bring the bill to a vote. Is that correct?

If so, in a situation like this where even one vote can be a tie-breaker, why can’t I just pretend to be opposed and let the Leader think they can bring the issue to a vote. Then I vote my conscience, the bill passes. Is this a thing?

I mean, what can they do to me? If they want to punish me I can just say I was voting my conscience.
Has someone who has Democratic ideals/beliefs ever campaigned as a Republican and then infiltrated the party till they get elected, and then voted straight Democrat?

If people are free to vote the way they want to vote, then they are free to vote the way they want to vote. This system seems easily taken advantage of.

The most fearsome people in Congress are the party whips who nail down every yae and nay before a bill comes to the floor. Vote other than what you told the whip or refuse to commit one way or the other before the actual vote and you will quickly start losing committee seats and PAC money.

There’s a certain amount of voting against the party line that’s expected and tolerated in Congress. However, deliberately lying about your intentions in order to defeat the party’s bills would likely lead to:

  • Being kicked out of your party’s caucus and stripped of committee assignments.

  • Being blacklisted by PACs and major donors associated with the party.

  • Having a well-funded opponent in your next primary election (AKA the Madison Cawthorn treatment).

Those seem like bearable consequences when compared to the momentous power to pass a bill with far-reaching effects. And unpredictable people can’t be controlled. Maybe I’m letting my imagination run away with me. There must be someone who wanted to effect change and thought their political career was worth lying about it?

Where is the advantage in lying about it? Why would you want the leader to bring a bill to the floor that you are going to vote against?

Technically, the members can vote however they want and that’s it. It’s not like a parliament (UK, Canada, Australia, Israel, etc.) where too many voting against the government triggers a no confidence and an election.

The members used to regularly split on their party’s bills. In the good old days, a lot of legislation was written and passed due to “Scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” It’s become less common as the political divide has become nastier and “cooperation” is seen as a dirty word. Plus, Trump was only the most recent to introduce the concept of “Primarying” where difficult members will find the influential national figures promoting someone else to get the nomination for the party against them in the primary. (Liz Cheney, anyone?) This extends to party support for elections, with advertising dollars and organizing. PACs are also sticking their nose into things to enforce adherence to dogma.

The party also has some influence with other things. IIRC, the head of the house or senate for that party can do things like allocate office space, and decide who gets to be on influential committees. (Although the speaker technically has the right to overrule the minority leader - but do so with caution or nothing gets agreed on). For example, the GOP wanted certain members on the House Jan 6 committee and the speaker said no, they would pick Cheney and Kinzinger.

A good example of this OP’s question is the senate so far with Sinema and Manchin. They knew if they said “no” the senate could not do many things, so much got held up trying to appease their demands. OTOH, they will probably face a backlash in terms of what they can ask of the party if they are no longer the decisive vote. And the Dems don’t want to piss them off too much, because if they defect to the Republicans, then McConnell becomes the leader of the senate.

When McConnell was senate leader, he could delay a lot of things because the senate leader decided what made it to the floor to be voted on - set the agenda. If he decided, for example, “we’re not going to vote on Garland as SCOTUS nominee”, it didn’t happen. He delayed on a large number of Obama judge nominees, thus ensuring that there were plenty of openings for federal judges when Trump got into power and nominated judges Mitch approved of.

OTOH, the senate has an interesting fake :filibuster" where 40% of the senate (40 members) can block any agenda item. (There are exceptions, like judges and budget bills).

The “obligation” is not one-way. The caucus leadership will do what the caucus collectively wants. The majority leader doesn’t typically make a cold decision and then enforce the caucus to follow. The leader will talk to their caucus to see where they are before making any public statements. A leader who ignores their caucus will quickly become ineffective.

Once the leadership knows what the caucus wants, they announce it and become the face of it. This incentivizes members to follow the party line, but also gives them political cover. They can blame the party leadership, or in case of something not being brought to a vote, simply avoid taking a stance.

But why is there a vote at all? The majority leader gets nothing from it; the bill already isn’t a law, so the vote would just waste time.

Occasionally the majority will call up an unpopular bill from the minority just to force them to either vote for it (and get tarred for it) or vote against it (and cause internal dissension) but that wouldn’t happen on a 50-50 issue. (For example, there has been talk about Chuck Schumer possibly using the impending lame duck session to force Republicans to vote on Lindsey Graham’s proposal for a federal abortion law. But that’s because there are already several Republican senators who are known to be opposed.)

I believe most bills are so innocuous that there is no reason to go against the party line. The minority leader suggests I should vote to build a new fishery hatchery in Western Tennessee, what do I care one way or the other so I’ll vote yes.

As Liz Cheney found out, you don’t even have to lie. Just vote against the party line that once or twice a session where the whip tells you how to vote.

Republicans seem much better than democrats at getting everyone to toe-the-line. The biggest example I can think of a republican thwarting the party in recent times was John McCain’s no-vote on repealing Obamacare. It was quite a dramatic moment in the wee-hours of the morning (if you like political drama that link’s four minute video is very interesting) and, I think, was the vote that derailed the bill.

I can only guess that it probably helped him buck the party that he had recently been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer so he knew there simply was not a lot the party could do to punish him (or rather, he probably did not really care about the party punishing him at that point).

It is worth noting that sometimes the parties will let a member vote against the party-line if it does not change the outcome and that member may need some political cover because they might get in trouble with their voters.

Thanks, everyone. I am obviously not a politics junkie.

So would it be possible for an unknown person who identifies as a Democrat to campaign as a Republican to, if elected, screw with the Republicans in some way? Or vice-versa?

Also, what is the advantage to having “parties”? I mean, from my outside perspective it sure looks outdated and ridiculous that individual people capable of critical thought are expected to fall in line. I feel like everyone knows it’s high school clique culture but no one wants to stop it.

McCain did something like this with an ACA related bill when he didn’t need to worry about his career anymore. There have been a few others over the years over as a final fuck you but it’s rare. It’s more politically expedient to be like Manchin and demand concessions for his vote.

Theoretically possible but realistically not unless they were running a long game faking their entire lives. Even if you did, you’d be frozen out after the first signs of shenanigans.

Not too many people like the parties but it would be impossible to get enough funding to make a new one successful. If you want to run nationally, you need the big parties backing you.

The problem, in the US two-party system, is first-past-the-post voting. It basically forces a two-party system. Not by rule or law but by the mechanics/math of it.

It would be exceptionally difficult to dislodge the current two parties that dominate. Yes, there are other parties and, occasionally, they win some elections. But they are swamped by the two main parties by far.

Candidates run as third-party or as non-affiliated all the time. Virtually none of them get elected. The primary advantage of belonging to a party is money. The second and third reasons are also money. They also offer exposure, national support. Also, money.