It is sometimes said that politics involves the art of compromise. This does not mean that in politics one cannot have principles and stick to them but that at some point if there is a clash of principles, then there may be no means of resolution within the system other than having one or both sides back down, at least partially. This is because when it comes to the decisions of certain political institutions, there is no supra-arbiter to decide who wins and who loses. The contesting parties themselves have to work things out. This can be contrasted with (say) civil disputes between two parties where there is always recourse to an external entity like the courts that can step in and decide the issue.
This was perfectly illustrated in the vote for the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. The rules under which it operates created a box whose remarkable rigidity only became apparent when it went into operation this time. The rules said that the first order of operation had to be the election of the Speaker and that the Speaker had to be elected by a majority of the 435 members present and voting. Those members who were absent or voted ‘present’ or abstained were not counted. In a two-party system in which each side puts up one candidate and where the vote is along party lines, there is no problem in that the party that has the majority will always have its candidate win. And that is what usually happens.
[Read more…]