Here’s one answer for congressional gridlock

In the American system of government, logic would dictate that if most members of Congress support a legislative measure, it should pass and become law. That may seem like American Civics 101, but the current rules of Congress are not logical.

One need only look at the gridlock to know something is terribly amiss.

Fortunately, there is a remedy to repair part of Congress’ dysfunction. It requires a small group of results-minded House Republicans and Democrats to agree to withhold support of their party’s next nominee for speaker unless party leaders agree to reform House rules and procedures that boost the prospects for bipartisan problem-solving legislation.

The change is possible after November’s mid-term elections if the political pundits are correct that the majority party will only have a slim advantage in the House.

The catalyst behind this reform effort is the non-partisan group, No Labels, in which I’m active. No Labels is composed of a growing number of congressional members and voters who support bipartisan efforts to solve our country’s problems.

No Labels is calling for future speakers to win at least 60% of the votes in the 435-member House, not just a simple 50% majority as current rules require. This would force a speaker nominee to gain at least some support from the minority party and would bring about a pivotal change in House practices.

The way the House works now, the minority party is almost powerless, even if its members make up 47% or more of the body. This change in rules would improve the prospects for bipartisan measures and break the disproportionate hold that far-right and far-left factions have on their parties by requiring leaders to reach toward the middle to get things done. The focus of the process would shift from winning a fight to solving problems.

To maintain their hold on power, speakers from both parties have generally adhered to the “majority of the majority” rule, sometimes called the “Hastert rule.” If a proposal lacks support from too many of the majority party’s members, the speaker can smother it, no matter its overall support in the full House. This has happened numerous times.

Consider immigration. In 2006, the Senate easily passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and advocates on both sides agreed it would survive a House vote, if given one. But then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, noting that most of his caucus opposed the legislation, invoked the “majority of the majority” rule and blocked it from even being considered by the House. Similar scenarios played out in 2013 and again this year, when Congress tried to update the law dealing with “dreamers.”

Revising House speakership election rules could change this practice. Currently, when a new Congress convenes at the beginning of every other January, both parties nominate their leader as speaker. In a mostly partyline vote, the majority party’s nominee wins. This makes the speaker beholden only to his or her own party as if the other party hardly existed. We need a speaker of the entire House, not just of the majority party.

By requiring a 60% vote, the new speaker would need 261 votes instead of the current 218, which would nearly always require the majority party’s nominee to reach out to several, or even dozens, of the minority party’s members for support.

Congress’s inability to pass legislation that has bipartisan support requires bold changes. Americans want a functional government, which we need and deserve.

David J. Lubar is president and chief executive of Lubar & Co.