Thread: WHIPPING the votes-What does it mean?

We have all heard about WHIPPING the votes A.K.A. a whip count.
We also know that there is a majority whip and a minority whip.
Would anyone like to explain exactly what whipping the votes and a whip count means?

I belief the term "whipping the vote" relates to the notice sent out by the party whip requiring all party members be present to vote for a specific bill or amendmant.

You're right MW, but I also think it's about "whipping" up sentiment in favor of any given bill.
The majority (and minorty) whips want to get all the "little soldiers" in line behind a given bill. So they "persuade" them to vote the party line.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

You're right MW, but I also think it's about "whipping" up sentiment in favor of any given bill.
The majority (and minorty) whips want to get all the "little soldiers" in line behind a given bill. So they "persuade" them to vote the party line.

So what you are saying is that looking at the voting record of any given senator or congressman does not tell the whole story???

You sure do like to pick a fight don't you?

What I said was that EACH SIDE has a Whip - that pushes people to vote the party line.

If any of these yoyos had the cojones, they would listen strictly to their constituents,BUT THEY DON'T!

Maybe the Senate shamnesty bill was passed because the minority whip (democrat) convinced republicans to vote for it?

RE:You sure do like to pick a fight don't you?

No maam

RE:What I said was that EACH SIDE has a Whip - that pushes people to vote the party line.

Yes


RE:If any of these yoyos had the cojones, they would listen strictly to their
constituents,BUT THEY DON'T!

Yes.

RE:Maybe the Senate shamnesty bill was passed because the minority whip (democrat) convinced republicans to vote for it?

But how how how could the minority whip bring a bill to the senate floor for a vote in the first place when the agenda is controlled by the majority leader??? And WhyWhy Why would the senate majority leader bring a bill to the floor of the senate that is supposedly opposed by the majority of his own party??

But how how how could the minority whip bring a bill to the senate floor for a vote in the first place when the agenda is controlled by the majority leader???

Sigh - once again, the minority whip could have "whipped" up enough sentiment to get the bill on the floor, REGARDLESS of what the majority leader wanted.

And WhyWhy Why would the senate majority leader bring a bill to the floor of the senate that is supposedly opposed by the majority of his own party??

The senate majority leader must bring a bill to the floor if a MAJORITY of the senate wants it there, regardless of party affiliation. If members of the majority party were convinced to do it by members of the minority party, well, that's that. It gets on the floor. Must as I dislike the man, he can't control that!!! This is a fact.

Add into the mix that the Shrub was pushing for "comprehensive immigration", you've got the Senate "majority" between a rock and a hard place.

Why do I keep getting the idea that you feel the democrats are impotent?

One more question:

Tell me why the most outspoken critics of the Senate bill were republicans?

Never hear a word out of the democrats!!

Originally Posted by dxd

RE:You sure do like to pick a fight don't you?

No maam

RE:What I said was that EACH SIDE has a Whip - that pushes people to vote the party line.

Yes


RE:If any of these yoyos had the cojones, they would listen strictly to their
constituents,BUT THEY DON'T!

Yes.

RE:Maybe the Senate shamnesty bill was passed because the minority whip (democrat) convinced republicans to vote for it?

But how how how could the minority whip bring a bill to the senate floor for a vote in the first place when the agenda is controlled by the majority leader??? And WhyWhy Why would the senate majority leader bring a bill to the floor of the senate that is supposedly opposed by the majority of his own party??

I like when you play stupid because you do it so well.

As you KNOW but refuse to acknowledge, there are any of a number of ways that the minority tail can wag the majority dog, particularly in an election year. In this case, the minority Dems were able to force the hand of the Republican leadership in the Senate by threatening to claim racism and xenophobia in the election races. Had the Republicans not brought the immigration bill to the floor, the Dems would have claimed that the "racist" Republicans "hate" people of color and would have used that - not to keep Mexicans and other Latin minorities from voting Republican (few Hispanic illegals or supporters of illegals vote Republican anyhow, though many responsible Hispanics do and still will), but as a rallying cry for the Democrat voter base, which has been less than energetic over the last few election cycles.

The Republicans were caught between angering their constituents by bringing the shamnesty legislation to the floor and angering the voter base of the opposition to the point that they would turn out en masse on election day. Just as dxd likes to point out the intrigues within intrigues when it suits him to do so, he utterly ignores those intrigues when acknowledging them hurts his case. The fact is that the Senate knew that the House bill was so far from their own bill that reconciling the two would be impossible. That being the case, the Republicans were able to cut the legs from under the Democrats in this election year by robbing them of one of their key rhetorical points (that the Republicans are anti-amnesty and anti-immigration) without having to actually pass the legislation in question.

What I'm saying is that while dxd likes to claim that it doesn't matter how the Dems voted since they could not have gotten the legislation to the floor themselves, it is at least equally true that it didn't matter how bad the Senate bill was, because the Senate Republicans knew that an irreconcilable House bill had been passed already and by so large a margin as to preclude any substantial backing down by House leadership in committee. But dxd won't even begin to acknowledge this because he is here as a partisan hack. The Republicans appear to have placed a premium on preserving their vulnerable majority in the Senate, and so they allowed the House Republicans to carry the water on this issue while the vulnerable Senate Republicans covered their arses. I'm not sure how good a move this will end up being politically though, given that many disenchanted Conservatives are likely to sit out this election.

Now, any political strategist will tell you that this is how the game is played, particularly in an election year. Personally, I revile these sorts of political games in which the well-being of the constitutents plays second fiddle to partisan maneuvering for power. But let's at least be honest about what's going on what the effects of this Senate gambit are. There is no chance that the Senate bill will pass. It is dead. The bad thing is that getting nothing accomplished before the elections, which is what it appears we are faced with, maintains an unacceptable status quo. My guess is that if the Republicans survive the elections and hold their majority, the bill that gets ironed out in the next session will look more like the House bill. If the republicans lose the Senate but keep the House, there may not be a bill, because there may be no hope of reconciling an even more entrenched anti-illegal House with a solidly pro-illegal Democrat Senate. If the Dems take the House or (heaven forbid) both chambers, we Americans are screwed and we had better start leasrning Spanish or figure out which country we're moving to.

CheyenneWoman,
RE:The senate majority leader must bring a bill to the floor if a MAJORITY of the senate wants it there, regardless of party affiliation

Did you mean to say House?
House and Senate rules are very different. In the House, if the speaker won't bring a bill to the floor and a simple majority (21 of members want it brought to the floor for a vote they can sign a Discharge Petition and the bill must be brought to the House floor for a vote. This is what happened on the Campaign Finance Reform bill known as Shays-Meehan in the House.

Senate rules are much different. In the senate there is no direct equivalent of a Discharge Petition. The majority leader controls what is brought to the floor....but...in the senate there is a lot of ifs, ands, and buts.. Very briefly, the majority leader decides what is brought to the floor and HOW it is brought...but any one senator can propose any amnedment unless the bill is treed...so any senator can propose amnesty as an amnedment on any bill....but....any senator can object....requiring a cloture petition to be filed and so on and this is one of many scenarios that can take place in the senate.

Remember during the judicial nominee debates, the D party threatened to virtually shut down the senate using procedural techniques if the so called Contitiutional Option ws employed???? Remember?? Well then why didn't these so called R senators who were "so against amnesty" do the same??
No need to answer. We know the answer.

The senate debated 2 weeks and then took some time off the amnesty subject and then came back and debated another 2 weeks and then passed the Hagel/Martinez S2611 amnesty.
Long BroadwayShows usually have an intermission.