> The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil Why? > Because it makes it impossible to govern, There are at least two approaches to govern while maintainin

> The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil Why? > Because it makes it impossible to govern, There are at least two approaches to govern while maintaining the rule. First, to bring different points of view closer, which may bring minority to a majority while keeping majority on the other side. It's not easy, of course; it encourages position reformulation, determining the crucial issues etc. - a work for negotiation. Second, one of the party may get majority on the next elections because of the opposition of another party. This approach takes more time, but in general encourages more awareness of positions in the electorate. Hastert rule had reasons to appear; why it's worse than what it was before that?