Speaker of the house election

[Ransom]

Perhaps someone can help me with a bit of a mystery.

The procedure for choosing the Speaker of the House of Representatives looks much the same as the procedure used in Canada to select a candidate or party leader.

Nominees are voted upon by delegates. After the votes are counted, the nominee with the least votes is eliminated. Typically, he will ask his supporters to support another candidate. Then, another ballot is cast with the remaining candidates, and the procedure is repeated until a nominee receives a majority of the votes and is declared the winner. Usually this takes a few ballots--typically around three or four.

How does the system for electing the speaker differ? There were seven candidates on the first ballot, which suggests to me that the election should have taken six ballots max--not fifteen over several days, which seems to me farcical.

Why is it that your elections always seem so inefficient compared to ours? The U.S. is roughly twice the age of Canada, meaning you've had an extra century or so to streamline things.

 

[illinoisguy]

I'm not sure if it makes any difference who they elected as Speaker of the House. Rumor has it that this bimbo will be the power behind the throne.

 

[abcaines]

It's a mystery to this American too. Back in '94 when the GOP wrested control of both the House and the Senate from Democrats, I watched the election of Newt Gingrich to the position of House Speaker. It seemed to be a simple affair: a vocal vote was taken of the representatives within the chamber between Newt and the Democrat's choice for House Speaker. I thought that was how it was always done. Obviously, I'm wrong.

It seems odd to me that in order to get the majority of the vote, this candidate had to make a number of "concessions" in order to secure the votes of some of the more conservative members of the House. This suggests to me that he is something of a RINO. After all, he's from California. A GOP politician from California may seem conservative by California standards but when actually examined, is really quite liberal.

After watching what I have of this fracas, it's a wonder to me that the GOP has any credibility whatsoever.

 

[illinoisguy]

Some info on how the Speaker of the House is elected.

How the House Elects Its Speaker

The first day of a new Congress is a truly exciting day for the House, and especially its newly elected Members. One of the most momentous parts of the first day is the constitutional obligation of electing a Speaker, who will preside over the House for the next two years. Since the Speaker has...

www.congressionalinstitute.org

We do have a bit of a head start on Canada with this stuff. After all, Canada did not get its "independence" until 1867. Canada did not get an independent foreign policy until 1931, nor its own flag until 1965, nor its own Constitution until 1982. (I recall when I visited Toronto in 1980, everybody was talking about "repatriating" the Constitution). You would think that with all our superior experience at self-government, we Americans would have avoided the embarrassing circus this past week in the House of Representatives, but apparently not.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In speaker elections no candidate is ever eliminated and any name can be nominated and voted for…Trump for example. The speaker must get a majority of votes but this was political theater. Half of the no’s were to get concessions from the speaker elect but it seems a few simply had a personal grudge and had no plan or strategy except to be contrary.

 

[IFB X-Files]

I welcome any and all debate, discussion, and compromise within the halls of your Congress. It seems you earthlings like everything rubberstamped and instant, which no doubt has something to do with your failing Republic.

 

[AverageJoe]

McCarthy, to be honest, doesn't have the brains, nor the balls (sorry to be crude) to be Speaker. He should never have been allowed to get past the first three tries. He's helped to make the Republicans more of a joke than they already were, and he's lost all credibility. The Democrats know this, as does most of the United States and the world.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Perhaps someone can help me with a bit of a mystery.

The procedure for choosing the Speaker of the House of Representatives looks much the same as the procedure used in Canada to select a candidate or party leader.

Nominees are voted upon by delegates. After the votes are counted, the nominee with the least votes is eliminated. Typically, he will ask his supporters to support another candidate. Then, another ballot is cast with the remaining candidates, and the procedure is repeated until a nominee receives a majority of the votes and is declared the winner. Usually this takes a few ballots--typically around three or four.

How does the system for electing the speaker differ? There were seven candidates on the first ballot, which suggests to me that the election should have taken six ballots max--not fifteen over several days, which seems to me farcical.

Why is it that your elections always seem so inefficient compared to ours? The U.S. is roughly twice the age of Canada, meaning you've had an extra century or so to streamline things.

There’s a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the constitutional requirements for becoming speaker. It’s assumed the Founders probably assumed the selection would always be a sitting member of the House, but constitutionally, any citizen can be elected, hence Trump’s nomination the other day.

Personally, I think this situation would be good cause for Congress to consider adding a 28th amendment and cleaning this mess up, especially since the Speaker is third in the presidential line of succession. Anyway, here’s a pretty decent article with some additional info: https://qz.com/who-is-eligible-to-be-us-speaker-of-the-house-1849956017

 

[aleshanee]

There’s a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the constitutional requirements for becoming speaker. It’s assumed the Founders probably assumed the selection would always be a sitting member of the House, but constitutionally, any citizen can be elected, hence Trump’s nomination the other day.

Personally, I think this situation would be good cause for Congress to consider adding a 28th amendment and cleaning this mess up, especially since the Speaker is third in the presidential line of succession. Anyway, here’s a pretty decent article with some additional info: https://qz.com/who-is-eligible-to-be-us-speaker-of-the-house-1849956017

is anyone starting to see some validity in what i was saying last month?... about how republicans don;t really want to win control of anything?..... they want to keep their own seats alright - but they would prefer to undermine their fellow republicans so the party as a whole is always in the position of underdog... rather than have a stable majority and be expected to actually accomplish something... ......

other people in the news have noticed this same phenomenon... .. ..but i got called "kooky" on the forum for suggesting the reason was that they find it easier to raise money from republican voters if they can say they are struggling and trying to come from behind... .... because once republicans do get in control their voters usually expect them to get busy and get things done with the money they have already been given....... unlike democrat voters who will fork over their money regardless. .. ... ..but that;s ok.... i realize it might take a while for others to come around to what i saw from the very start. ..i;m patient..

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

is anyone starting to see some validity in what i was saying last month?... about how republicans don;t really want to win control of anything?..... they want to keep their own seats alright - but they would prefer to undermine their fellow republicans so the party as a whole is always in the position of underdog... rather than have a stable majority and be expected to actually accomplish something... ......

other people in the news have noticed this same phenomenon... .. ..but i got called "kooky" on the forum for suggesting the reason was that they find it easier to raise money from republican voters if they can say they are struggling and trying to come from behind... .... because once republicans do get in control their voters usually expect them to get busy and get things done with the money they have already been given....... unlike democrat voters who will fork over their money regardless. .. ... ..but that;s ok.... i realize it might take a while for others to come around to what i saw from the very start. ..i;m patient..

I just think that the Republicans are a party with no real sense of direction or identity. They want to continue to appeal to the old dying WASP crowd and also try to somehow mix in with the changing American citizenry of the 21st century. It’s painful to watch.

 

[Ransom]

In speaker elections no candidate is ever eliminated and any name can be nominated and voted for…Trump for example. The speaker must get a majority of votes but this was political theater. Half of the no’s were to get concessions from the speaker elect but it seems a few simply had a personal grudge and had no plan or strategy except to be contrary.

That's about what I assumed. Talk about a waste of time...

I should have looked into the analogous election in Canada, which is for the speaker of the House of Commons. Candidates are nominated (same as you) and have until the day before the vote to decline to run. There's a ballot, and every candidate who receives less than 5% of the vote is eliminated (or the candidate with the least votes if none received less than 5%). Then there's another ballot until one candidate has a majority, at which point he is escorted by the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition to the speaker's chair. Traditionally, he goes reluctantly and is symbolically "dragged" to the chair. We do have some weird symbolism from time to time.

So again, with each successive ballot eliminating at least one candidate (and no one being allowed to nominate new ones in the middle of the process, which strikes me as ridiculous), stuff usually gets done by the end of the day.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I recall a similar circus with the California Assembly when they briefly became a Republican majority after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. They basically made the Republican majority meaningless and they lost the majority two years later. Of course you know what has happened to California since and what happens in California eventually becomes national. In other words, we are pretty much screwed as a nation! God IS on the throne and he is sovereign but it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that as a nation, we are under his judgment.

 

[AverageJoe]

I recall a similar circus with the California Assembly when they briefly became a Republican majority after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. They basically made the Republican majority meaningless and they lost the majority two years later. Of course you know what has happened to California since and what happens in California eventually becomes national. In other words, we are pretty much screwed as a nation! God IS on the throne and he is sovereign but it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that as a nation, we are under his judgment.

I fully agree.

 

[illinoisguy]

And we thought the 2023 Speaker of the House election was a circus. Check out the 1849 election:

"On December 13, 1849, Representative Richard Meade of Virginia declared that he would support only candidates for Speaker who gave him assurances that there would be no further consideration of anti-slavery measures in the House. . . . In response, William Duer of New York accused Meade of favoring the dissolution of the Union. When Meade denied it, Duer replied, 'You are a liar, sir.'. . . Meade sprang to his feet and charged the New York congressman while other representatives tried to restrain him. A reporter for the Congressional Globe wrote, 'indescribable confusion followed - threats, violence, gesticulations, calls to order, and demands for adjournment were mingled together. The House was like a heaving billow.'. . .

"The combatants finally composed themselves, but the discussion over slavery continued to paralyze the House. The representatives spent 3 weeks and took 63 votes before electing a speaker. The confrontations between elected representatives continued into the streets, and threats of violence were common. 'This will be an exciting and stormy session, and if there be not some duels fought, I shall be disappointed,' Bernhisel wrote to Mormon leaders."

[Source, "Mormon Envoy - The Diplomatic Legacy of Dr. John Milton Bernhisel," by Bruce Worthen, 2023, pp. 81-82]

 

[sword]

Regarding California's left leaning politics:

Before 1988 California usually voted for the Republican for president (except for Rosevelt and Truman). That ended in 1992.

• California is home to 10.5 million immigrants, 23% of the foreign-born population nationwide.
• In 2021, 27% of California’s population was foreign born. Many more of their citizens are children of immigrants (legal and illegal).

Of course not all immigrants vote Democrat, but immigration has played a role in the change in the electorate.