How would the US House of Representatives select a majority and minority leader, if the membership was made up of an even number of Republicans and Democrats? So if we had 215 Republicans, 215,Democrats, 3 independents, 1 Green Party and a Libertarian, how would how determine, the Majority Leader?
Heavy negotiations and promises to the third parties.
The independents and minor party members will certainly caucus with one or the other of the major parties, depending on their political preferences and which party offers them the better committee assignments. (The House currently has no independent members, but there have been several recently in the Senate who caucus with the Democrats.) Since the House has an odd number of members, it can’t really be tied except for temporary vacancies.
In reality politicians outside of the two parties caucus with the party of their choosing depending on whether they’re more liberal or more conservative.
Also, and anyone can certainly correct me if I’m wrong here as I’m not going to bother to look it up, but I don’t think minority leader is a real position. There’s the speaker who gets the most votes. And the person who doesn’t get the most votes remains influential, but doesn’t have any real political power.
No, the positions of majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate are real and formally defined positions. Among other things, both the majority and minority leaders get an extra $19,400 a year compared to ordinary members of Congress. (Senators and Representatives get paid $174,000 a year; the Speaker of the House gets $223,500 a year; the President pro tempore of the Senate and the House and Senate majority and minority leaders all get $193,400 a year. See Congressional Salaries and Allowances (PDF file) from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.)
There would be a coalition House to decide on Speaker like there was after the election of 1848. Each party would have their own leader if the precedent of 1849-1851 is followed or there may be coalition voting for majority and minority leaders.
The majority and minority leaders are chosen within their party. Thus the Democrats choose a leader, and the Republicans choose a leader. Third parties are free to choose their own leaders.
When the time comes to choose a Speaker of the House or the President Pro Tem of the Senate,* a vote is held to choose who will take the post. There is no provision to deal with ties, since neither post is defined by the Constitution**. The President Pro Tem is less contentious, since he really doesn’t have any power, and usually goes to the most senior senator of the majority party. The Speaker has a good deal of power, and if neither party’s candidate gets a majority, there will be some serious horse trading to choose someone for the post.
But the actual party leaders are only chosen by the party involved. The number of votes they have doesn’t matter.
*The President of the Senate is defined by the Constitution, of course.
**The extra salary is just an appropriations issue given to leadership positions.
In 2001 the Senate was evenly split at 50 Democrats and Republicans each. Control switched from Democratic to Republican when Cheney replaced Gore as President of the Senate, and then switched back again when Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and decided to caucus with the Democrats.
A very closely divided Congress can provide a powerful incentive for some members to switch parties and thereby gain critical influence in the party they give the majority to. This could be particularly important for a member whose state or district tends to vote heavily for the other party.
So is Speaker of the House
(also both are mentioned in the 25th Amendment)
As to the OP, this has actually come up before. In the run up to the Civil War there were third-parties that had sizable contingents in the House, with the result being no one Speaker candidate could win a majority. IIRC, there were two instances where there simply was no speaker for several months.
Beside 1849, what was the other year? Other than 1849-1851 one party has always held a majority in the House of Representatives.
Thanks; I hadn’t heard of that. That’s an interesting deal they struck.
Bob Dole was, I think, the first Minority Leader to refer to himself as “[Party] Leader” (in his case, Republican Leader) rather than as “Minority Leader.” I see that Nancy Pelosi is now doing that in the House: http://www.democraticleader.gov/. C’mon, folks - be honest. If you’re in the minority, just say so.
BTW, the President pro tem of the Senate (typically the senior senator of the majority party in the Senate, as RealityChuck noted) is also in the line of succession to become President of the United States, after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.
However, at that time there were no formal party leaders, other than the Speaker himself. The roles of majority and minority leader emerged in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century.
The OP poses a question which is not easily answered. The roles of majority and minority leader are enshrined in House and Senate rules, and the individuals involved are given various powers, without ever defining how “majority” and “minority” are determined. Instead, each caucus simply makes an announcement at the beginning of each Congress, as for example on January 5, 2011:
If we were in a situation with multiple parties lacking a majority, of course a coalition must come together to elect the Speaker. Election as Speaker requires a majority of the membership present and voting. But, it isn’t obvious how this would affect the leadership. For example, suppose the membership was A 200, B 150, and C 85, and B and C came together to elect the Speaker. The members of C would have their own party leader, so it wouldn’t be right to call B the “majority leader”. However, this falls into the category of bridges we will cross when we come to it.
Ummmm, no. In 1849 Howell Cobb was elected by plurality on the 63rd ballot when it was clear no one would get a majority.
Ummmm, yes. The rules today require a majority.
What rule? There is nothing in Rule I requiring a majority.
Speakership elections are conducted according to Chapter 153 of Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives, which is not available online. See however this report by the Congressional Research Service for a full discussion of Speakership elections. The relevant section of Cannon’s was invoked by the presiding Clerk most recently in 1997, when a dispute arose over whether Newt Gingrich had secured the necessary majority.
But that is not what you claim. You claim that the rules require a majority and your cites pertain to whether or not that means a majority of votes cast or majority of the House membership. Under the rules you cite if a person gets a majority of votes cast, then they are Speaker. But that does not say a majority is required. Lets say that there is a major schism in the majority party so that 3 candidates are being voted on. Are you claiming that under the rules that the House will never have a Speaker as long as none of the candidates can get a majority? In other words, if in the opinion of the House no one can get a majority that the House cannot invoke the precedent of 1849 and elect by plurality and so the House will be Speakerless?
Of course they can vote to change the rule if they wish. Any rule, law, regulation, or constitutional provision can be changed. The point is, under the rules and precedents of the House as currently applied, election as Speaker requires a majority of the members present and voting by name for a candidate. I don’t know why you are arguing this.