I loved how Stefanik was praising Gym for his wrestling skills.
Like... you sure you want to bring up his time in wrestling?
Like... you sure you want to bring up his time in wrestling?
To be elected speaker, a candidate must receive a majority of votes from the members present and voting. If no candidate wins a majority, the roll call is repeated until a speaker is elected. Looks like Jeffries will get about 49%, Jordan about 46%, and others make up the rest of the votes. No one got a majority (over 50%). Jeffries will get a plurality (most votes but not over 50%).
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
They seem to have a particular taste for sexually abusing wrestlers for some reason.It’s really on brand for the GOP to favor a candidate who allowed sexual assault to happen to people under his care.
Already heard one McCarthy voter say they would vote for Jim Jordan in round two.
I guess I’m not surprised this doesn’t happen more - it’s a unique and weird set of circumstances here. Basically you have:So it has to be a majority (of those voting), not just a plurality - and there's no system of elimination rounds (such that the pool of candidates gets progressively smaller till there are only two choices, if necessary)
If nobody gets a majority the vote just starts again from scratch? Slightly surprised, given that system, that it hasn't frequently gotten into this mess.
I suppose if the system allows people to just vote "present", you could still fail to elect someone even with only two candidates, but if you had elimination rounds _and also didn't count people voting 'present' without making a choice_, then there would have to be an outcome eventually.
It's quite reminiscent of the parliamentary farrago we had post-Brexit. Conservatives in general seem to have lost interest in actually governing, they seem to just love chaos. But it also seems to reveal flaws in the systems.
It's foolish to think just a handful of crazy members don't care about governance when you had close to 200 Republicans just voting for Gym Jordan, who we all know is against any decent governance. Now the vast majority of the Republican party are those crazy members. Just look at their votes.I guess I’m not surprised this doesn’t happen more - it’s a unique and weird set of circumstances here. Basically you have:
1) Republicans with a razor thin majority and
2) a handful of crazy members who don’t care about governance.
3) most importantly though you have a party where all the non-crazy people are terrified of a primary challenge so they aren’t willing to do the obvious.
In the past freaks like Gym would be neutered because the moderates would just make a deal with Democrats. Not anymore though as compromising with democrats, even to elect a Republican speaker, is treason.
Is that wishful thinking?2) a handful of crazy members who don’t care about governance.
Is that wishful thinking?
As in... proclaim it enough times, widely and loudly, that even the Republicans might believe it and start voting against extremism?
Doesn't seem to be working thus far....
We have a razor thin number of R Congress critters who aren't' crazy.
This is what a three party system looks like in a FPTP voting scenario. You have a primary party, a loser party, and a spoiler party making sure the loser keeps losing. The numbers are wacky right now in the house but the R's created their own spoiler party.I guess I’m not surprised this doesn’t happen more - it’s a unique and weird set of circumstances here. Basically you have:
1) Republicans with a razor thin majority and
2) a handful of crazy members who don’t care about governance.
3) most importantly though you have a party where all the non-crazy people are terrified of a primary challenge so they aren’t willing to do the obvious.
In the past freaks like Gym would be neutered because the moderates would just make a deal with Democrats. Not anymore though as compromising with democrats, even to elect a Republican speaker, is treason.
Is that wishful thinking?
As in... proclaim it enough times, widely and loudly, that even the Republicans might believe it and start voting against extremism?
Doesn't seem to be working thus far....
We have a razor thin number of R Congress critters who aren't' crazy.
I was going to comment similarly but I at least recognize that non-crazy in his post was used relatively. Even knowing that, it still pisses me off to see the phrase, because there are precisely zero non-crazy Republicans.Exactly like I said he has it all backwards. If you haven't figured out the Republicans yet then there is no hope. People that understand the situation or close to it need to take charge not the completely naive wing of the party
I think when you say handful of Republicans aren't interested in governance then it's a clueless statement.I was going to comment similarly but I at least recognize that non-crazy in his post was used relatively. Even knowing that, it still pisses me off to see the phrase, because there are precisely zero non-crazy Republicans.
The "moderate" fascists in the Republican Party still have a lot more in common with the "loony" fascists in the Republican Party than they do with the right-wingers in the Democratic Party.When I watched the first vote today I was hoping that somehow Mr. Jeffries would win.
When I watched the first vote today I was hoping that somehow Mr. Jeffries would win.
So what happens if they never manage to elect a speaker? Or it takes a year or more?
Would government cease to function until some Congress people died of natural causes, to be replaced by disgruntled constituents, with more co-operative figures, thus breaking the log-jam?
I still say it's just a bad system that it can grind to a halt like this just because one party has a significant share of crazy people. Shouldn't the 'framers' have come up with a mechanism to handle cases where _nobody_ manages to get 50%?
A concept the President should damn well ignore.but it's going to get pretty unseemly and far more public once the government shuts down.
That sounds suspiciously like a “major question”. The current SCOTUS would just rule the President does not have that power. Also when it comes to the budget aka authorizing the government to spend money that power does lie with the legislative branch.A concept the President should damn well ignore.
For the good of the nation, it should be the President's duty to maintain the status quo and previous directives from Congress. Until such time as Congress passes NEW legislation to provide a change in directive. If Congress fails to do so, then see you next election. It should be the entire reason we have a President in the first place.
Not only that, it explicitly lies with the legislative branch - it isn't something ambiguous.That sounds suspiciously like a “major question”. The current SCOTUS would just rule the President does not have that power. Also when it comes to the budget aka authorizing the government to spend money that power does lie with the legislative branch.
I agree with your sentiment when it comes to the debt limit. But when it comes to actually establishing the budget that is clearly the power of the legislative branch.
Yeah it’s basically the legislative branch ignoring its responsibilities. It’s going to be a rough ride if the GOP continues to allow 4 to 8 members to throw a monkey wrench into the works at will in the House.Not only that, it explicitly lies with the legislative branch - it isn't something ambiguous.
Anyway, CRs (ie, the status quo) are kind of not that great. Sure, the government doesn't shut down, but they also keep funding going to programs that might need to be ended (or have that funding reallocated), new programs can't start up, and funding levels remain flat (so effectively being cut relative to inflation).
There won’t be any repercussions from this clown show as long as the base chooses party over countryYeah it’s basically the legislative branch ignoring its responsibilities. It’s going to be a rough ride if the GOP continues to allow 4 to 8 members to throw a monkey wrench into the works at will in the House.