On December 12, the U.S. House passed the Ryan-Budget compromise budget resolution, HJR 59. The measure passed easily, by a vote of 332-94. Seven members did not vote and there are two vacancies. Among the members of the House who voted, only 22.1% voted “No.” Some of the “no” votes were cast by Democrats who believe the bill stifles worthy spending, and some of the “no” votes were cast by Republicans who believe the bill spends too much. The media tends to support the idea that both types of opposition are “extreme”; no such opinion should be inferred from this blog post.

Among members of Congress from open primary states, 23.0% voted “No.” Among members from closed primary states, 19.6% voted “No.” Among members from semi-closed primary states, 28.9% voted “No.” Among members from top-two states, 17.4% voted “No.”

Opponents of closed primaries constantly express a belief that closed primaries yield more extreme politicians, yet in this vote, as in recent similar roll-call votes, open primaries seem more like to produce “extreme” politicians. Here is the roll-call vote.

All six of Washington state’s Democrats voted for the bill, which lowered the percentage of “no” votes from top-two states. Chances are not all of the Washington Democrats would have voted for the bill, except for the fact that U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, put her prestige on the line as the Democrat who negotiated the compromise, and her fellow Democrats from her home state wanted to support her.

On December 12, the Eleventh Circuit refused to order Alabama to put James Hall on the ballot for the special U.S. House election, First District, that is being held December 17. The order is only a single sentence: “We affirm the District Court’s denial of appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the injury to the public from the issuance of an injunction would far outweigh any injury appellants might suffer.”

The order is signed by Judges Gerald Tjoflat, Charles R. Wilson, and R. Lanier Anderson.

Scott Conroy, a national politics reporter for Real Clear Politics, has this article about why it is so difficult for a new political party in the United States to take root, even when there is widespread antipathy for each of the two older major parties. Conroy was a network TV reporter in 2012 who covered the Mitt Romney presidential campaign full-time.

The analysis says that given the U.S. winner-take-all system, combined with a separate election for president (as opposed to a parliamentary system), it is virtually impossible for a new party to arise. But this ignores the fact that in the 19th century, when the United States had the same election structure, three times one major party died off and was replaced by another. The Federalist Party died after 1820, to be replaced in 1825 by the National Republican Party (which ran John Quincy Adams for president in 1828, and Henry Clay in 1832). The National Republican Party died off and was replaced by the Whig Party in 1835. It died off during the Civil War, having already been replaced as a major party by the Republican Party.

The article has interesting information about Americans Elect.