WHIPping The Party Into Shape(What Is A Whip?) - Granite Grok

WHIPping The Party Into Shape
(What Is A Whip?)

No, this ISN'T a Party Whip, but there are occasions when I think this is the kind we need!
No, this ISN’T a Party Whip, but there are occasions when I think this is the kind we need!
Who, or what, are Party Whips? Why do they matter, and why do I think that the GOP should be embracing the British approach?

The concept of the Party Whip was introduced into the British Parliament in the 18th century, and into Congress at the very beginning of the 20th century. The job basically consists of ensuring that party members know the order of business for the house, and that they are persuaded to vote with the party platform.

Failure to show up and vote right when it matters, especially in the UK, can be a career-limiting move, with punishments including expulsion from the party, withdrawal of funding, and exclusion from key party posts.

Let me explain further, and make the case for American Whips being more like their British counterparts (not something I say often):

In this article, I have borrowed liberally from these two references:
(Ref 1) Parliament Explained (2 – The House of Commons) (PDF)
(Ref 2) Whips in the United States (Wikipedia)

Why are they called Whips?

The term “Whip” was first used in the eighteenth century. The party organizers of the time were likened to the person on the hunting field who “whipped-in” the hounds in the pack to keep them all together. The term “Whip” is, therefore, most appropriate as these officials work to keep their parties together.

You could call the job “Cat Herder in Chief!

Who are the Whips?

(British)
In addition to the [caucuses], most of the parties, large and small, have important officials, chosen from among their MPs, known as Whips. They have a variety of functions within their party. Discipline is important in any party, and the task of maintaining discipline falls to the Whips.

(American)
[L]egislative bodies are divided along party lines and have Whips, as well as Majority and Minority Leaders. Similarly, the Whip may also be known as the Assistant Majority or Assistant Minority Leader.

Both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and Senate, have Majority and Minority Whips. They in turn have subordinate “regional” Whips. While members of Congress often vote along party lines, the influence of the Whip is weaker than in the UK system. One reason [for that] is that a considerable amount of money is raised by individual candidates, and members of Congress are almost never ejected from a party.

Now, let’s take a look at how the Brits do things, and see if we might apply some of their techniques to reduce the number of rogue votes – which I define as voting against the party platform…….

One, two, and three line Whips in the UK:

WhipSheetEvery week [The Party] Whip sends the MPs a notice, also known as ‘The Whip’, giving the order of business for the following week. Each matter to be discussed will be underlined once, twice or three times according to its importance. If it is underlined once then it is not a particularly important issue and attendance is merely requested. A rather more important matter will be underlined twice meaning that attendance is particularly requested. Attendance [and voting correctly] is essential when an item is underlined three times (a “three-line whip”). The Whip illustrated (click-enlarge) shows three-line whips. In the case of a three-line whip, a Member will normally be expected to attend unless he or she is either seriously ill or has to attend to some extremely urgent business elsewhere and has permission from the Whips’ office to be absent.

Voting the party line (UK):

Although MPs in the House of Commons can theoretically vote as they wish, they are generally expected to vote with their party. This usually presents no problem. Most MPs belong to a party because they agree with what it stands for. Occasionally, however, revolts do occur. These become particularly important when the Government has only a small majority and the votes of a handful of MPs can make all the difference. Parties feel that it is, therefore, necessary to reinforce Members’ natural loyalty to their parties with a tight system of party discipline. Within each of the main parties there is a Chief Whip, together with 10-12 Whips.

Nice little career you HAD there… (Why don’t WE do this?)…

If a Member, despite the reasons listed above, still chooses to disobey the Party Whip, he or she can be warned several times. Continued defiance may eventually result in the Whip being withdrawn or a Member resigning the Whip. This means that the Member no longer belongs to the party in Parliament. Most Members would never go this far as they benefit from belonging to a party and it rarely happens. Sometimes the Whip is restored after a time. If it is permanently withdrawn, a Member may find his or her political career ruined as without party backing, their seat is very likely to be lost.

As mentioned in the Wiki article, lack of Party backing doesn’t doom funding for a Member of a US legislature quite so drastically as in the UK, but we DO have leverage:

In both countries, recommendations to party leadership for ministerial positions (UK) or committee chairmanships (USA), frequently come from the Whips, and consistently voting against the Party platform and/or leadership will get you shut out of those opportunities.

Also, there is still plenty of leverage to be gained by expulsion from the Party because, regardless of the CongressCritter’s funding sources, forcing them to run as independents opens up the seat for a challenge.

If the Party leadership in either DC or the states had the courage to demand adherence to the Party Platform, or better yet, the wishes of We The People, they would have the opportunities to replace the rogues.

Jennifer Horn, Reince Priebus, John Boehner, are you listening?
Will you whip the rogues into line, or will we pull out that nine-line whip from the top of the page and come after you for failure to lead??

>