Members elect vote before being sworn in as members.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-108/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-108-35.htm
Anyone interested in the position should go have a long talk with John Boehner, who describes the day he quit as speaker as one of the happiest days of his life.
He’ll bring the weed.
Obama did that!
I’m sure McCarthy doesn’t think about it in terms of being a headache. He’s wanted the job for a long time and now see it as “his turn” so I doubt he even thinks about Boehner. Or he’s just the idiot many suspect him to be. But he doesn’t seem given to cooperating much with Democrats so I don’t see him turning that way to get support.
Thanks for the link to the Roll Call article. It is indeed interesting. Whether or not the Upton option comes into play remains to be seen. I still suspect there is a good chance the holdouts will give in and McCarthy will get elected fairly quickly. We will see.
ETA: Any idea how they rules could be changed to get a secret ballot in place? That seems the only way to get a joint D + R vote done on an alternative.
Point remains that some want the job even though the job is going to be a horrible set of headaches. Probably less irrational for an Upton or a Kasich (both of whom could give a rat’s ass about the hard Right base’s approval) than for a McCarthy. Place in history as a unifying and healing force is an appealing siren’s song as your career winds down.
I think there is more than “a good chance” the holdouts will give in and McCarthy will be elected quickly. I’d go so far as “odds are” …
OTOH I am more sure that the group who have pledged to not vote for any serving Representative other than McCarthy will stay true to their pledge: I would give very low odds to Scalise, much lower than the Predictit current 21 cents implies.
IF the “hard never McCarthy five” realize that the other group isn’t bluffing though, they’ll likely fold. The Upton (or Kasich or whoever) option can only happen if that “hard never five” is stupid and stubborn enough to not realize that, or to refuse to compromise anyway, as a matter of principle or marketing their brand* or just stupid miscalculation.
I don’t see the odds of that as so extremely low.
I have no idea how a vote for a secret ballot would work, or how in history they changed the rules to allow election with a plurality instead of a majority of those voting for someone.
*Even with an outcome of Upton resulting those who held true to no compromise will likely see their MAGA associated fund raising numbers spike up nicely.
Kasich does clearly despise Trump and his minions. If the opportunity arose maybe the lure of being a unifier could get him in the game but at 70 I would think his current gig as a talking head has more appeal. I don’t know much about Upton.
As for the Never McCarthy 5, in my mind any group that counts Biggs and Gaetz as members is by definition a group with stupid to spare. But you are likely right that they will fold.
So, what happens if they can’t come to a consensus? If they just keep taking the vote, and getting the same result.
That’s theoretically possible but I imagine that pretty quickly different candidates would emerge.
It could mean the Upton Option becomes more likely. Or something like it. If McCarthy ends up saying to hell with this and dropping out then the MAGA types could put Scalise or someone else forward.
But this won’t happen until things get seriously stalled. Like more than 10-15 rounds of voting at minimum with neither side backing down.
Yeah, I totally forgot about that. The Never Kevins can just vote “present”.
Yep, I forgot that as well. Definitely a way it could play out. I’m curious what would have to be promised to get that to happen.
Too bad McCarthy’ll likely get in. I wanted to see…
band name?
I would back up and ask another question. Why is it that until a century or so ago, they would indeed, whether electing a speaker or nominating a president, keep taking the vote over and over with similar results — but more recently, this never happens? Is there a structural explanation for why politicians are now in such a seeming rush to get these decisions made quickly?
The Upton Option is a good one as well.
So let’s go with the most likely prospect of McCarthy winning:
What will he have had to give to the Never Five to get their minimally only voting present?
If it includes their desired any member may call for a new election at any time (or even a minimum of five) then how long does he last before another vote and breath holding tantrum happens?
What in the case of his getting the position is the over under for his expiration date? A year? Less? The whole two years? Longer?
I’lm game, but not just yet. I need to see how this plays out a bit more before making specific predictions.
But I expect the Rule of 5 would get their attention. McCarthy should hold out for at least 10.
It’s interesting, because – as much as I’ve poo-pooed the idea that a bipartisan coalition could elect a Speaker – a motion to vacate the chair is a different matter. Instead of having to vote affirmatively for an individual to be the Speaker, the motion to vacate is a yes/no on whether the Speakership should be declared vacant. On that vote, I could see a number of Democrats agreeing to abstain and let McCarthy keep the gavel in exchange for some concessions like a clean debt-limit increase. And then what does the Never Five do? They’ll have been proven powerless.
Up until 1936, the Democrats required that their candidate receive a 2/3 majority at the convention to be nominated. While Republicans never had that rule, both parties allowed bloc voting for state delegations, which meant instead of a candidate needing to pick up a dozen individual delegates here and there for a simple majority, they might need to make deals with several whole state delegations to get their votes.
As for why the House needs multiple ballots to elect a Speaker, when you only have 435 voters and they’re pretty much evenly divided, it only takes a few holdouts to carry a lot of clout.
The House is consititutionally empowered to write and amend its own rules at any time, though since the Rules are a resolution normally that means you need to have it duly constituted so actual sworn members can vote on specific rule changes, or to continue the prior rules; during the interregnum it is supposed to operate under “general parliamentary rules” based on… let me check… Jefferson’s Manual. I suppose the staff of the House parliamentarian and those of the respective Leaders must have been going over that to figure out any possible scenarios for Tuesday.
(Gift link)
There’s a good explanation in this article about why it used to happen much more frequently and what changes have made it rare. The highlights being that in the past there were more than 2 parties in the running, and it used to require a 2/3 vote to win.