Indecision 2022

[Grumble]

Its kinda funny. But also messed up that a minority of folks can veto the house picking a speaker.

To be fair, the same could happen in the UK. We might get a similar situation if the Tories had a slim majority but the ERG refused to back the Tory candidate.

The same has happened several times in the last few years, but we have the ability to call an early general election if it really can’t get resolved. Not saying it’s better, but it avoids the prospect of months of wrangling.

[lpm]

Its kinda funny. But also messed up that a minority of folks can veto the house picking a speaker.

To be fair, the same could happen in the UK. We might get a similar situation if the Tories had a slim majority but the ERG refused to back the Tory candidate.

In the UK, Pelosi would be PM and would only resign after an election once an alternative candidate was able to command the confidence of the House. If McCarthy failed to get that confidence, he wouldn't be invited by the ceremonial head of state to be PM. And if no other candidate emerge to command a majority, the House would be dissolved and a new election held, again with Pelosi remaining PM.

As happened in 2010, when the election was on 6 May but Brown remained PM until 11 May, the point when Cameron was able to win any equivalent of the Speaker vote.

[Woodchopper]

Its kinda funny. But also messed up that a minority of folks can veto the house picking a speaker.

To be fair, the same could happen in the UK. We might get a similar situation if the Tories had a slim majority but the ERG refused to back the Tory candidate.

In the UK, Pelosi would be PM and would only resign after an election once an alternative candidate was able to command the confidence of the House. If McCarthy failed to get that confidence, he wouldn't be invited by the ceremonial head of state to be PM. And if no other candidate emerge to command a majority, the House would be dissolved and a new election held, again with Pelosi remaining PM.

As happened in 2010, when the election was on 6 May but Brown remained PM until 11 May, the point when Cameron was able to win any equivalent of the Speaker vote.

I was thinking more literally in terms of the speaker of the house of commons. Yes, the US system is different.

[IvanV]

I was thinking more literally in terms of the speaker of the house of commons. Yes, the US system is different.

The US Speaker is not at all to be compared with the UK Speaker, which I didn't understand for many years. It's not a very descriptive name, when you are used to the UK usage. US Speaker is most similar to French Prime Minister, being a Prime Minister, ie political leader of the house, in a system with a separate leader of the executive, ie executive head of state in the president. Hence the comparisons to PM, albeit that direct comparisons to UK PM don't work very well, as UK PM is head of the executive, and French PM/US Speaker isn't.

[lpm]

Well how do those foreigners cut off on the other side of the channel get a PM then, or other countries get a speaker/legislature leader?

[monkey]

Well how do those foreigners cut off on the other side of the channel get a PM then, or other countries get a speaker/legislature leader?

Sometimes they don't. Belgium went 589 days without a parliament not long ago.

[IvanV]

Well how do those foreigners cut off on the other side of the channel get a PM then, or other countries get a speaker/legislature leader?

The French PM is appointed by the President, but the President can't sack the PM. Sacking the PM - in practice bringing the government down (government, ie legislature, in the Assembly, as distinct to the executive led by the President) - is the privilege of the National Assembly the PM leads. So although in principle the President can appoint any member of the Assembly, in practice the president has to appoint someone the Assembly will tolerate, unless he actually trying to provoke the Assembly to fall and have a new election.

So there are some parallels with the US system, which likewise has a separate legislature and executive. The PM (France) / speaker (US) has to be someone the assembly/house will tolerate, even if the methods of appointment are different.

[dyqik]

Its kinda funny. But also messed up that a minority of folks can veto the house picking a speaker.

Not sure why I'm surprised though... minority rule is the cornerstone of republicanism.

They aren't vetoing anything. All that's happening is that the GOP leadership won't put up and back a candidate that the majority of the house will support.

[Bird on a Fire]

Yes, isn't it a majority of folks voting against the candidate? All D plus some R.

[dyqik]

Yes, isn't it a majority of folks voting against the candidate? All D plus some R.

Yep.

BTW, what happened eventually in the longest running version of this (3 months and 133(?) votes) was that the House adopted a motion that gave the Speakership to the winner of the plurality of votes instead of the majority.

[dyqik]

The negotiations now are at the point that various holdouts are demanding that the house not raise the debt ceiling (which would basically heavily devalue US Treasury bills, collapsing the global financial system), and that it shuts down the government if they don't get their way in budget negotiations with the Senate.

And that anyone can move to vacate the speakership, at which point the house votes whether to do this whole thing again.

[IvanV]

They aren't vetoing anything. All that's happening is that the GOP leadership won't put up and back a candidate that the majority of the house will support.

So as your later post indicates, they can buy the cooperation of the holdouts but at the moment their demanded price is too high.

Is there someone, perhaps rather more moderate, that could get enough of a cross-party vote? Though the idea of a cross-party vote seems unlikely given the recent history. Why should D cooperate as R brings itself into disrepute? Rs, when in the minority, have consistently refused to vote even for things they agree with, as they consider it more important just to make it difficult for the other side to govern. A new era of cross-party cooperation on consensus issues seems rather unlikely just now.

[Gfamily]

The negotiations now are at the point that various holdouts are demanding that the house not raise the debt ceiling (which would basically heavily devalue US Treasury bills, collapsing the global financial system), and that it shuts down the government if they don't get their way in budget negotiations with the Senate.

It's the MAFUA wing of the GOP

[monkey]

Is there someone, perhaps rather more moderate, that could get enough of a cross-party vote? Though the idea of a cross-party vote seems unlikely given the recent history. Why should D cooperate as R brings itself into disrepute? Rs, when in the minority, have consistently refused to vote even for things they agree with, as they consider it more important just to make it difficult for the other side to govern. A new era of cross-party cooperation on consensus issues seems rather unlikely just now.

I think the Dems would be quite happy for some of the GOP to vote for Jeffries, but that doesn't seem very likely at all. I imagine any Republican that voted for a Democrat speaker wouldn't have much of their career left.

[bjn]

And any Republican speaker elected on the back of cross party votes from the Democrats will be pilloried as a RINO.

[temptar]

Any of the hold puts wouldn't have a career in non bstshit insane countries.

[monkey]

Any of the hold puts wouldn't have a career in non bstshit insane countries.

As far as I can tell, all democracies have their own versions of prominent batshitty politicians who shouldn't have careers.

[dyqik]

Is there someone, perhaps rather more moderate, that could get enough of a cross-party vote? Though the idea of a cross-party vote seems unlikely given the recent history. Why should D cooperate as R brings itself into disrepute? Rs, when in the minority, have consistently refused to vote even for things they agree with, as they consider it more important just to make it difficult for the other side to govern. A new era of cross-party cooperation on consensus issues seems rather unlikely just now.

I think the Dems would be quite happy for some of the GOP to vote for Jeffries, but that doesn't seem very likely at all. I imagine any Republican that voted for a Democrat speaker wouldn't have much of their career left.

I don't know that there's anyone that could get a majority of the R votes and enough D votes to get an overall majority without the R leadership whipping it. There are some moderate Rs that could get the majority of D votes and enough R votes to get the overall majority, but it means defying the R whip.

So until the R leadership whips for one of those moderate Rs, or goes full batshit, there's no resolution.

[lpm]

Just bring in someone from outside Congress who is loved by all Republicans. He's busy losing a war right now though.

[monkey]

Is there someone, perhaps rather more moderate, that could get enough of a cross-party vote? Though the idea of a cross-party vote seems unlikely given the recent history. Why should D cooperate as R brings itself into disrepute? Rs, when in the minority, have consistently refused to vote even for things they agree with, as they consider it more important just to make it difficult for the other side to govern. A new era of cross-party cooperation on consensus issues seems rather unlikely just now.

I think the Dems would be quite happy for some of the GOP to vote for Jeffries, but that doesn't seem very likely at all. I imagine any Republican that voted for a Democrat speaker wouldn't have much of their career left.

I don't know that there's anyone that could get a majority of the R votes and enough D votes to get an overall majority without the R leadership whipping it. There are some moderate Rs that could get the majority of D votes and enough R votes to get the overall majority, but it means defying the R whip.

So until the R leadership whips for one of those moderate Rs, or goes full batshit, there's no resolution.

I wasn't really considering D's voting for an R. They seem too solid in showing how united they are while the Republicans fail and flail to bother thinking about it.

[dyqik]

The D's will stay united against someone like McCarthy, but they would negotiate for a moderate R, non-leadership and who didn't vote against certifying the 2020 election, I think.

This just happened in both the Ohio and Pennsylvania state houses

[IvanV]

The D's will stay united against someone like McCarthy, but they would negotiate for a moderate R, non-leadership and who didn't vote against certifying the 2020 election, I think.

This just happened in both the Ohio and Pennsylvania state houses

Interesting to learn that the culture wars are not pervasive, and there are some US politicians who are trying to return to a more sensible way of doing politics.

[IvanV]

Yes, isn't it a majority of folks voting against the candidate? All D plus some R.

Yep.

BTW, what happened eventually in the longest running version of this (3 months and 133(?) votes) was that the House adopted a motion that gave the Speakership to the winner of the plurality of votes instead of the majority.

Just looked that up. Nathaniel Banks in 1855. After 133 votes. One of just 15 occasions they failed to vote the Speaker in at the first try.

[dyqik]

I think the Democrats have found the moderate Republican that the press keep claiming exist. Fitzpatrick, who was the only R to turn up to the Jan 6th memorial event today.

[bolo]

The D's will stay united against someone like McCarthy, but they would negotiate for a moderate R, non-leadership and who didn't vote against certifying the 2020 election, I think.

I think this is not entirely clear, and in addition, a Republican candidate who was acceptable to enough Democrats would thereby lose a bunch of Republican votes.

An important point though is that you don't need an absolute majority, just a majority of those who vote for a named person. So McCarthy (or some other R) wouldn't actually need Democrat votes, just enough Democrats who miss the vote or vote "present". That's still a high bar, but a lower one than expecting a D to vote affirmatively for an R.