So I don’t know if anyone has seen this anti-Jefferies petition going around in their socials like wildfire.: Petition · House Democrats: CHOOSE A NEW SPEAKER - United States · Change.org
What chance does this petition have on succeeding? I’m starting to think this is nothing but a grift. And a racist one at that.
You’re asking if a petition on Change.org can legally require the House to choose a certain speaker? No.
What is the grift? I don’t see any request for money.
I don’t see any overt racism, either.
The webpage says of the petition starter, “Nicole Whitted is a Change Ambassador who receives compensation in connection with this petition.”
I admit that I have no idea how the compensation process works.
WTF? Who is paying people to start online petitions? It’s not like it requires a set of specialized skills.
Exactly this. There is no mechanism for any sort of petition or mandate from voters to directly influence the naming of a candidate for the Speakership. It’s entirely an internal matter within the Democratic House Caucus to name their candidate.
Now, if a petition had a huge number of signatories, maybe some in the caucus might pay attention to there being a groundswell of anti-Jeffries sentiment. Maybe.
OTOH, I suspect that it is probably way too easy for an online petition to be gamed by bots or a relatively small number of actors.
I think there’s absolutely zero chance the new House reelects Mike Johnson as the Speaker, so I guess this petition is an easy win.
If you read the petition to which the OP links, that’s not what it’s about at all.
It’s trying to get the Democratic House Caucus to hold an open election (within the caucus, I assume), rather than just nominating Jeffries.
They chose a poor top line then.
Technically, the entire House elects the Speaker; it’s not just the choice of the party in control. In theory, and perhaps in more cooperative times, the selection might be someone preferred by people on both sides of the aisle.
Which is why I specified “naming of a candidate.”
The way it will almost undoubtedly work is that the Democrats will name a candidate, the Republicans will name a candidate, and the newly-elected Representatives will vote along party lines.
The only time it doesn’t work this way is if there’s dissent within one of the parties – as happened in 2023, when Johnson was eventually named, after Kevin McCarthy was ousted, and after numerous failed attempts to elect a speaker, due to a group of hardlline GOP reps.
I say grift.
Correct. The lady who started the petition is part of the Change.org Change Ambassador program which means she gets about 30 to 50 cents per signature.
Change.org is, and to participate you need to be a content creator with a big enough platform. They’re paying you to drive your audience to their site.
They ain’t dropping Jeffries. For some reason I have to keep saying that. A Black Speak after a blue wave, even a tidal wave? Nope, nope, nope.
Yeah, for real. And some of the attacks on Jeffries are pretty unhinged. “AIPAC Shakur”? Where did this nakedly racist Blue MAGA bullshit come from?
Horseshoe theory in action. Go too far on any side of the spectrum and you wind up at antisemitism.
Doesn’t Change.org have a political direction they want to move in? The “How it Works” makes it sound like any petition would or could be paid for, regardless of what it was for. It seems like there ought to be something between step 2 and step 3 about evaluating the petition for a desirable outcome, but I don’t see anything like that.
No? Why would they? They’re just a business, providing a platform for hosting petitions.
Historically there have been more left wing polls than right wing ones just because of the nature of the site, but it’s always been a neutral for profit platform.