# Source for Harry Reid quote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 22, 2005, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760 "2005-12-22T05:45:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/1 "2005-12-22T05:45:30Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/2 "2005-12-22T06:24:02Z")
A Google News search shows nothing. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/3 "2005-12-22T06:28:37Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > “We have become like the House of Commons. Whichever side has the most votes wins.” 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? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/4 "2005-12-22T06:51:05Z")
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](http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/12-22-2005.gif) ---
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Gene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@Soylent\_Gene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Gene)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/5 "2005-12-22T06:54:33Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > 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? 😕 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? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/6 "2005-12-22T14:28:46Z")
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: > [@](#): > > There has never been an attempt in the Senate like this to similarly abuse our practices. When they have occurred, they have been ruled out of order or the leaders of the respective parties in this body have said you are going too far. The Senate has a series of precedents prohibiting bootstrapping a procedural fix in the same bill that violated the particular rule. Those precedents should be applied here to prevent this abuse of practice. If this practice is allowed to stand, then the Republican majority, or any majority, can change the rules in the Senate procedure prospectively in a conference committee without any say by the minority party by a simple majority vote on an unrelated conference report. … > > We become the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers didn’t want two House of Representatives. They wanted a bicameral legislature. But we become the House of Representatives, and the possibilities are endless in an institution that exists to forge a consensus and not act on the whims of whichever majority party is in control at the time. We become similar to the House of Commons . Whoever has the most votes wins. We haven’t worked that way for 216 years. > > This abusive practice will allow any majority to alter any rule at any time for the consideration of any measure to advance its short-term political interests and will change the very nature of the Senate. 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. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/7 "2005-12-22T15:02:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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.” I must say that the quote is far from summing up the argument in any cogent way. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/8 "2005-12-22T15:15:47Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/9 "2005-12-22T15:25:49Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I must say that the quote is far from summing up the argument in any cogent way. You can read the whole speech (it is not terribly long) if you go [here,](http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/10 "2005-12-22T17:28:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/source-for-harry-reid-quote/336760/11 "2005-12-22T21:46:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You can read the whole speech (it is not terribly long) if you go [here,](http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html) 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. Your explanation was fine. It was the quote that was bad.