Boebert et al. can vote “Present.” On the 15th vote last time, the count was 216 for McCarthy, 212 for Jeffries, and 6 Present. A majority of the 434 votes cast would be 218, but if you don’t count the Present votes, he only needed 215.
So it requires a majority where the denominator is the total votes cast, excluding those who are absent or those who vote “present”?
Say, how do we do quotes from articles in those boxes?
Yes. As an example of this, the 14th vote last time was 216 for McCarthy, 212 for Jeffries, 2 for Jordan, 2 for Biggs, and 2 Present. 432 Representatives voted for somebody, which means a majority would be 217.
There were only 434 because Rep. McEachin had died in late November after having been re-elected and no replacement been named yet.
Those are just weblinks. Just type in an HTML address, then remove any editing that the board does to it.
Thank you!
This morning I had the weekly call with the Israeli office. It’s the first one in two weeks. They’re working from home and will re-open the facility on Sunday.
There were about 5 of them on the call and every one of them was literally gushing over Biden’s support. They were genuinely grateful for his words.
Kinda sad that 99% of Americans will know what McCarthy thinks of Biden’s statement, but not what the Israelis think.
You didn’t ask, but fortunately this particular office hasn’t suffered any personnel losses.
Unsurprising. Trump’s touch is the kiss of death now.
Everything Trump touches dies.
The House can elect on a plurality if it looks like no one has any chance of getting a majority. IIRC it has been done once before.
Scalise. seems sane compared to Jordan, maybe the Dems can vote him in?
Scalise represents a district in Louisiana. I can’t imagine that any cooperation with Democrats would be anything but a death knell for him at his next primary.
(Mr Burns voice) Excellent.
Found it here
In two instances the House agreed to choose and subsequently did choose a Speaker by a plurality of votes but confirmed the choice by majority vote. In 1849 the House had been in session 19 days without being able to elect a Speaker, no candidate having received a majority of the votes cast. The voting was viva voce, each Member responding to the call of the roll by naming the candidate for whom he voted. Finally, after the fifty-ninth ballot, the House adopted a resolution declaring that a Speaker could be elected by a plurality.
In 1856 the House again struggled over the election of a Speaker. Ballots numbering 129 had been taken without any candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast. The House then adopted a resolution permitting the election to be decided by a plurality.
On both of these occasions, the House ratified the plurality election by a majority vote.
(Edited)
Maybe the Republicans can. There’s enough of them, if they actually care about filling the speaker’s chair.
The House recessed without voting. Obviously Scalise doesn’t have the votes yet to be elected, and I imagine they don’t want to go through the same clown show they did back in January.
According to the NY Times, the floor vote has been delayed as too many Jordan supports came out and said they would not support Scalise. So right now Scalise is in the same position as McCarthy in January, i.e. fucked.
ETA: I think the big question is what the “moderate” (ha!) GOP house members will do if Scalise is unable to wheel and deal his way into the Speakership. Will they buckle under and vote for Jordan just to get someone in there? Or will they stick to their guns like the crazies are doing? I’ll take “buckling under” for $1,000, Alex.
Apparently, they also had the problem that some moderates were determined to vote for McCarthy as a protest against last week’s shenanigans.
Right. I love the whole “Democrats should fix this” routine. Let some Republicans support Jeffries, and the Democrats would love to help Republicans fix this.