|
Negotiators are busy this weekend, trying to line up legislators so that one or the other party will have a majority. There's a real prospect of 31-31, which most commentators have argued would be terrible, but the basic problem is that both sides really really want the greatly enhanced power that comes from being the majority party.
That desire is what's brought us to a legislative leadership (in both parties) intent on buying two of our less reputable freshman legislators at any cost. Bring them in, and you have the magic 32-30.
There are other options, though. While it may be hard for those who came up through the Bruno years to imagine, it's possible for legislatures to operate with less concentrated power in the hands of the leadership. I know that may also disappoint Democrats who were looking for payback after years of Republican stomping - hence things like the 10-1 ratio of member items - but the concentration of power in the majority party is the root cause of the coup and resulting chaos.
Imagine a Senate in which the leadership's task was facilitating legislation rather than deciding on it. Where the Rules Committee set and enforced rules rather than determining - with the majority leadership - which legislation was allowed to go to the floor. In which coalitions of legislators from both parties could pass legislation, needing only a majority of legislators, not the consent of the majority party.
I know, it's hard to imagine that in New York of all places. We haven't done business like that in a long time. At the same time, there's more to these ideas than an abstract call for reform. Functioning legislatures can deal with the challenges of a closely divided house. The temptation to "take my toys and go home" is greatly reduced when there's a conversation going on, a conversation open to all legislators and even the public.
I'd be surprised if these are the kinds of proposals being discussed this weekend by legislative and party leaders. I'm not sure that there's enough trust to implement them in any case, enough faith that this wouldn't just break down into further parliamentary maneuvering.
As our old system collapses, though, I think there's a very pragmatic case to be made for changes to the rules that allow a more flexible approach to legislating. Not because it's "reform" (though I thank the Brennan Center for having thought much of this through), but because this approach lets people who disagree about many things still accomplish work in the many specific cases where they can find agreement.
That would be a nice change.
|
