I’ve just heard a quote from Harry Reid that seems to be making the rounds of conservative blogs and like-minded outlets. The quote is (to hear them say it, in a rueful manner) “We have become like the House of Commons. Whichever side has the most votes wins.”
Is there an unbiased source for this remark, perhaps with some context?
A Google News search shows nothing.
I must be awfully dense because I don’t see any problem with this statement.
Is it supposed to imply that the Commons is bad? Or is it that the side with the most votes winning that’s bad? 
The way it was quoted, it seemed as if he thought it was a bad thing for the side with the most votes to win.
Here’s one of the places I saw it: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/12-22-2005.gif
I guess the problem is that the minority is powerless. Majority rule is a nice concept…but why should 51% always get their way over the other 49%? Where is the fairness in that?
Background: Reid said it on the Floor of the Senate on December 18 in reference to the attempt to put ANWR in the defense spending bill. To avoid a point of order that this rider would violate Senate rules, Republicans were prepared to hold a vote by which the Senate rules would be basically waived because of a majority vote. In some ways, this debate was similar to the one eariler this year regarding judges and “the nuclear option.”
A fuller quote from Reid follows:
Keep in mind that the Senate is fundamentally different from the House of Commons or the House of Representatives, in that the minority in the Senate has an incredible amount of power compared to either of those bodies: a minority can filibuster a bill to death, a single senator can (in some circumstances) derail legislation, it generally takes a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules, and so on. With small variations, those have generally been features of the Senate for more than 200 years, making it a very, very different type of legislative body than the House of Representatives or House of Commons.
I must say that the quote is far from summing up the argument in any cogent way.
OK, so he was talking against the use of another “nuclear option”. That makes a heck of a lot more sense.
Of course, it is the prerogative of the majority if they wish to change the rules. It would just be dumb and shortsighted, considering that they might not always be in the majority.
But at least the comment isn’t as clueless as they make it sound.
You can read the whole speech (it is not terribly long) if you go here, search for “house of commons”, and click on the December 18 link.
While the speech certainly does not measure up to the oration on the crown, I hope my summary explains the reasoning behind a very technical issue. Suffice it to say that taking one quotation out of context in a speech on a complex parliamentary issue is an extraordinarily misleading argument.
As I understand it, Reid was not complaining about majority rule in passing legislation. That’s always been the way; it wouldn’t make sense to protest that. He was talking about bending the rules arbitrarily. It’s like the kid who owns the ball gets to rule when it goes fair for him and foul for you. He can change the rules as it suits him just because he owns the ball. That ain’t playing fair. Rules are rules and shouldn’t be fucked with just to give one side an advantage in power over the other. I realize this sounds hopelessly naïve about the way the world really works. :smack: The Golden Rule says: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
Your explanation was fine. It was the quote that was bad.
