4 ms·
I don't see one side looking to 'collaborate' other than if they had to and I object to the notion that only 'one side' tries to stonewall deals. Senate votes
by jariel 6y ago
I don't see one side looking to 'collaborate' other than if they had to and I object to the notion that only 'one side' tries to stonewall deals.
Senate votes [1] are almost never perfectly partisan (52-48 in current form). They are all over the place. Romney, Fluke others have bounced on some big votes for Republicans, and frankly, we don't always see the 'break ranks votes' because they are usually foregone: Senate Whip won't take it to the floor if he knows there are a handful of stragglers so those 'broken ranks' are not as visible.
[1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_116_2.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_...
- ablekh 6y agoThere is some truth to what you're saying. However, regarding your non-partisan voting argument, I can say - and that's what I meant in my previous comments - that non-partisan voting was pronounced during previous congressional terms. Unfortunately, the current Congress, with some notable exceptions (like the ones you mentioned as well as the CARES Act), almost always votes across party lines~. Let's see what happens in this regard after January 20th. ~) Also consider @Steltek's point (comment below): "it's hard for Senators to break ranks if bills are never brought to a vote".