Why is the Speaker of the House not the Majority Leader for his party?

The Tea Party returns...

@abge the speaker is a formal constitutional position of the leader of the entire House of Reps. He is of the majority party but has formal powers etc...
The majority leader is the leader of the party caucus that has control of the House at the time. It is non-constitutional and more like party machinery.

That's high school AP US Gov for ya.
As for why, I think it's because you need a division of labor. The speaker is more concerned with how the House debates and votes on bills (he presides over the House Rules committee) while the majority leader is more focused on party unity and how individual members vote.

And another way in which the United States is WAY different from most other countries. This could quite literally NEVER happen in countries like Australia, Canada, nor in most (all?) European countries. It simply wouldn't be allowed. Question: is the fact that this is possible in the U.S. an advantage or disadvantage for us as opposed to nearly all of the rest of the democratic world?

Yes, I understand the constitution, I was just curious why it required two people, especially since you already have a whip to keep people in line.

@yaks
Actually, the chairman of the Rules Committee presides over the Rules Committee. ;)

But yes, for all those foreigners who are wondering, the majority leader in the House is the #2-ranked member of the majority party in the House, whereas the speaker is the #1-ranked member (again, different from most other Anglo-type countries, where the speaker is usually a middle- or low-member of the party or an independent; also not to be confused with the majority leader in the U.S. Senate, who is the #1-ranked member of the majority party--confused yet?). And yaks' description of the division of labor sounds pretty good to me.

Clearly an advantage, it's helpful... replace a tool with a bigger tool... isn't that what politics is all about?

I'd say it is an advantage since it provides a small check for the rank and file on the parties

Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.....

That's a good question, smoker. It all seems rather arbitrary to me, whichever you choose.

I think it's silly that a party leader could be ousted by losing his "sector," and the only real way around that is to do a parliamentary system like the Brits I'm tentatively rather in favor of this, because it seems that coalition governments are more able to compromise than a two-party system.

But that's said from complete ignorance on the real efficacy of British politics. It just *seems* better.

No, what we need is just to not have our districts gerrymandered to all fuck.

@OutsideSmoker thanks for that. I always thought that the Speaker was the automatic chair of the Rules committee for some reason.

Tell Scotus that, Abge. I'll hold up signs for you out front. Oh wait, that's illegal too, because of a decision they wrote...

I'm really wondering how this is going to shape 2014, and if it'll impact 2016.

Immigration was apparently a huge issue, one Brat took a very Tea Party (that is, a very krellin-esque) stance on.

And I guarantee--

That kind of platform on immigration will NOT fly in a general election.

But just for right now, as a liberal, it's both interesting and potentially terrifying to see the Tea Party going so far to the right.

If the GOP DOES trend this way, trend to the Far-Far-Far Right...

On the one hand, that arguably makes it easier for Democrats in certain states and districts, but on the other, it makes it more difficult in others AND it could mean more of the stand-off-ish, stonewalling, shut-down-the-government-whilst-we-scream tactics...and boy oh boy...if Congress is toxic NOW...

Now that the Tea Party has definitively taken over the GOP, how long before the sane Republicans make their own party?

Aaah how I long for the days when Republican simply meant smart spending instead of anti-science and anti-compromise.

Hey guys, people you know are voting for these idiots, it's not luck. It's a bit like in the UK with UKIP ..... although I can't help but wonder that if they are concerned about immigration they may have missed the boat a little. The Tea Party candidates themselves are descendants of immigrants, unless the whole party is run by Native Americans which I very much doubt.
Who do 'archetypall Americans' descend from, is it Italians, Irish, English, Mexicans, Africans or is just a 'colour-of-skin' thing?

^+1 there...Brat just attributed his victory to "a miracle from God."

...I don't care HOW religious you are...

Attributing your victory to God is 1. Stupid, 2. Megalomaniac and 3. Just insane...

Come on! I'd ask how you can take this guy seriously, but he just beat the House Majority Leader, so clearly a whole swath of people do...and that scares the shit out of me!

Congress is about to get a whole lot uglier if the Tea Party can follow this up...

I love how FOX News is just kicking Cantor to the curb right now...lol...and krellin complains about the liberal media acting like disloyal scum...

Cantor was a darling just a few weeks ago, and now his face is mud.

Gotta love politics.

And I'll pose the question to the group here--

What's the appeal of "simple ideas?" Brat keeps touting them, as if simple = good...

Complex issues deserve COMPLEX ideas and solutions...I get that he has to say that, Brat, as he's running on platitudes, and he has to do that, he's a politician...

But WHY does simple = good for so many voters?

Who equates simple with good when you're talking about huge deficits or border patrols or foreign policy or all manner of US Policy?

"There's nothing Right or Left about free markets."

^Brat on Hannity tonight.

...No, I'm sorry...free market economics is a BIG Right or Left issue, and I'd argue it leans Right.

Well, everyone gets the government they deserve. Wasn't it like... oh yeah, it was yesterday that Draug was actually happy there were no restrictions on stupidity in America and praised the fact that you can openly promote hate speech and be a nazi ... or a tea party member for that fact without anyone giving a fuck. Good riddance.

@Yellowjacket
"I think it's silly that a party leader could be ousted by losing his 'sector,' and the only real way around that is to do a parliamentary system like the Brits"
Not necessarily. Doing away with primary elections and letting the party leaders choose the candidates, or at least letting them exercise a veto on whatever form of primary took place, would do it. It would be less "democratic," but it would also be in keeping with the way these things work in other democracies, including presidential ones like Argentina and Brazil.

well, much as I hate to wander into a hornet's nest, Partysane, I too would argue that protecting freedom of speech is necessary, even when it comes to Neo-Nazis...

I defer to Mill there, who argues in "On Liberty" that it's best to allow offensive speech, as either someone will be right or else we can reaffirm their wrongness.

I'm happy that Holocaust Deniers are given a voice...so we can all laugh at their absurdity and shoo them back to the slime pit from whence they came.

If Holocaust Denial were illegal, as it is in certain European nations, I think there's the risk that an America that's conspiracy-theory-happy would go "Aha! WHY are they trying to make it illegal to disagree with THAT...they're covering up the fact it didn't happen, that's why!"

And then...well, I've already said the GOP looks to be moving even further to the Right with the win tonight...

So to limit free speech like that and move even further to the Right--may as well break out the white sheets now, because really, how much more Right can they get?

(Which is a trend I've noticed on the Left AND Right, that trending towards the extreme of either side is treated as a strength, and being a moderate a weakness...I'm sorry, but trending to the extreme-Left gave us Stalin and the extreme-Right Hitler...the extremes ain't so good, so why must we treat the outrageously-fringe as if it were a badge of honor rather than outright lunacy and, I might add, a serious cause of our gridlock right now?)

@Obi - Free market capitalism is not a bad thing per se, it is an economic system that is all.
It is America that have used capitalism as a 'social philosophy', a basis on how to educate a nation. It's all wrapped up in the flag and the national anthem and somehow God has got involved, I'm not sure if that helps the situation.
Now you have big business running your country, controlling your politicians. Corruption and greed were not part of the capitalist philosophy but this is what happens with power bought with dollars that should have been paid in taxes but instead are wasted on buying self-serving corrupt politicians.
Tax the rich properly and fund social programs properly and stop pumping into the kids the idea that 'greed is good', greed is bad.
Society and democracy go hand in hand, capitalism and democracy don't.
How many more years will it take before the dumb people work this out?

Yes obi. The free market, or unfettered capitalism, is the Neoliberal corporate agenda.

Extremists in politics are always bad, as is religion.
And to push a bad joke even further: At least the Nazis were not anti science and didn't give a fuck about religion.

Also I would love for people to quote others, there is a reason I have YJ muted and I hate to have to read his bs this way.

There is of course a "stop" missing.

YJ muted ..... that sweet little slice of cherry pie !!

So, do people see this as a rebuke of the idea that big money so dominates elections that the voice of the American people is dead?

Cantor's war chest: $5.5 million
Brat's: $200,000.

Forget the elections, big money dominates govt policy, that is your real worry. The rich and powerful don't care who gets in :-)