Have you noticed the rush of House Republicans calling it quits in the last few weeks?

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) announced his exit Nov. 1. He explained that to be a member of the Republican House majority means putting up with  the “many Republican leaders [who] are lying to America, claiming that the 2020 election was stolen.”

Buck is predicting that even more House Republicans will leave “in the near future.”

The day before Buck said good-bye, House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) also quit. Granger had been a leader among House Republicans who prevented the far-right, election-denying Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) from becoming Speaker of the House.

Also in October, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said she was quitting. “Right now, Washington, D.C. is broken,” she said. “It is hard to get anything done.”

    • los_chill@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      87
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trumpite replacement candidates have been losing close congressional seats to Democratic challengers so this may open up some pathways to retaking a majority.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s a risk though. Many people vote party line. It will depend a lot on what district or state the seat is in.

        • Jaysyn@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying get complacent, but looking at the all the elections from 2020 on, it’s less of a risk & more of a pattern.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. The ones that are closer to being moderate (there are currently no moderate Republicans in the house) are leaving. They’re less crazy in general, so not only are there fewer Republicans to push back against the MAGA crowd, it leaves spots open to be filled by even crazier Republicans.

    • Mereo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is why the system needs to be transformed into a multi-party system. From now on, both parties will become more and more extreme.

      • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve been voting in elections since the 90s and it’s always been this way at least since my dad was voting in the late 60s.

        Breaking away from two parties is great talk, but there seems to be a lot of pushback from folks that are, for over reason or another, married to FPTP voting. We aren’t ever going to move past the two party system until FPTP is thrown in the trash heap and private monetary political donations are banned outright.

        Also, no idea why anyone down voted you.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Did you like the chaos of not having a House Speaker as a small faction turned against the majority and held the entire chamber hostage?

        If so, then you would love coalition politics because that’s a regular occurrence. If you consider the Freedom Caucus as a separate party in coalition with the GOP, then their antics will be familiar to anyone living under a multiparty system.

        Multiparty systems don’t solve the problem of extremism, they normalize it. In Italy, Israel, and now the House, leaders must appease extremist factions to stay in power.

        • Mereo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          We need to get away from American politics and look at how coalition governments work elsewhere in the world. Yes, they can be messy, but it forces the parties to sit down and TALK to each other and make some concessions to make it work.

          Just like marriage. Both people are no longer single. They are now living together, they have to make concessions and agree on a common set of rules, norms, etc. The same thing happens in a coalition government, the parties make concessions to make it work and agree on a middle way. That cannot happen in a two-party system.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right. Coalition governments tend to have a few crazies around the fringes. The difference is that they stay at the fringes, because more reasonable heads are collaborating to form a majority. You don’t have the current situation where the loons are dictating everything while being made up of about one half of the majority party.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Loons dictating everything while being barely a fraction of majority is exactly what you have in Italy and Israel, which are among the purest examples of multi-party democracy.

              Italy’s leader is now a literal fascist, and Israel is run by a right-wing nutjob bending the knee to nutjobs who are even more right-wing than he is.

              • Mereo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                What you’re seeing are outliers. Take a look at this list of coalition governments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_coalition_governments

                There are plenty of functioning European countries (since we’re talking about the US) that have functioning and “normal” coalition governments.

                It also depends on the parties that won and the system used to elect these officials. For example, if the most left-wing party came first, but the other two centrist parties came second and third, if the most left-wing party wants to govern, it will have no choice but to make some concessions in order to govern and put policies on the table that all parties will agree to.

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, you can add Hungary and Turkey to the list of fascist-enabled coalitions. And more where open fascists are elected to parliament, like the Dutch PVV and the Austrian FPO. These serve to normalize fascism even if they remain outside of the ruling coalition.

                  Meanwhile, two-party governments have basically no elected representatives from openly fascist parties. If third parties were viable, David Duke would be in Congress.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you want to look at how coalition governments work elsewhere, you need to look at Italy and Israel. Those are among the purest multi-party systems.

            In both countries, it is true that some parties sat down and “made concessions”. But in both countries, the parties were the mainstream right and one or more fringe fascist or outright racist parties. As the price of staying in power, the mainstream right “conceded” that open fascists and racists have a legitimate place in a ruling coalition.

            In a two-party system, I am at least thankful that extremists tend to paralyze government, not empower it.

            • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The failure of the two party system, unfortunately, is the fact that one party is always the leader. In the case of the US, it’s the GOP. The GOP has successfully taken control and shifted the Overton Window in the country further and further to the right since 1945. It will never reset back to an equilibrium with the structure that we have currently. Electing a Democrat only loosens the noose, it doesn’t remove it.

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Disagree. The GOP candidate won the national popular vote only once in the last eight presidential elections. They have not passed any significant national legislation in that time. Meanwhile Democrats have enacted health care reform, climate investment, and now pro-choice laws.

                The GOP can only hold on to power via voter suppression / electoral tricks, and that strategy won’t work forever.

      • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I respectfully disagree. I think the GOP will keep marching towards the far right, but that will cause the Democrats to move to the center

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact that there’s even a debate to be had about whether it’s a victory just shows how fucked up our system of government is—in this case, our electoral processes. Government policies in a democracy should be highly predictable based on what’s popular with the voting-age public, but instead, the policy effects of something as minor as some people retiring are so unpredictable we may as well be trying to read the future in chicken entrails.

      • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think part of that reason is due to the fact that half of Congress has an arbitrarily capped headcount and we’re no longer able to represent the popular opinions of the constituency. Last I checked, we should have something like 3x the representatives in the house that we have currently.

        We also need to ditch the electoral college. There’s no reason to have it any longer. We won a civil war that forced the South to start evolving beyond chattel slavery to prop up their economy, there’s no need to continue with that farce.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The numbers I’ve seen are that if the House wasn’t capped it would have around 10,000 members.

          I agree with your points but I don’t think they go far enough. Approval voting (or RCV) and proportional representation are needed.

          • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh for sure, I’ve advocated for that for several years. Here in multinomah county, Oregon USA, we went with a version of RCV and our next election will be run that way. There’s a lot of detractors, and while I personally would have preferred STAR voting, I think almost anything is better than FPTP.

            You’re right, I was off by a factor of 10 or so on the rep count.

          • Jaysyn@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Do you want to take a guess which party is making RCV illegal & already has done so in Florida?

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          the whole federal government leans toward rural conservatives. every state gets two senators regardless of population. there’s a ceiling and a floor on house reps, so big states are underrepresented and little states are overrepresented. the president is picked by the electoral college, which favors smaller population states. SCotUS is picked by the already biased president and the senate, which has the heaviest bias.