Mike Kelly (R-PA) just cast his vote for John Boehner, the former speaker who resigned not just the speakership but his House seat in 2015 due to Republicans' unwillingness to pull together and pass funding for the government. He called Jim Jordan a "legislative terrorist," a phrase that has come up in various recent news reports (and earlier on this thread, IIRC). So Kelly was sending a message.
Edit: 17 "other" votes so far. I wonder if Jordan picked up any new supporters at all. What's the over/under on this going to as many ballots as it took to elect McCarthy speaker?
I'd give you good odds on this taking as many as long as we aren't assuming Jordan is the one eventually elected. Not that I'd want to hazard a guess who will be the next Speaker.
Speaker Vote II: the Votening! Vote count on the second ballot for Speaker of the House:
Hakeem Jeffries (D) 212
Jim Jordan (R) 199
Steve Scalise (R) 7
Kevin McCarthy (R) 5
Lee Zeldin (R) 3
John Boehner (R) 1
Byron Donalds (R) 1
Tom Emmer (R) 1
Mike Garcia (R) 1
Kay Granger (R) 1
Candice Miller (R) 1
Bruce Westerman (R) 1
Present 0
Not Voting 0
So Jordan has lost ground ground among his fellow House Republicans. There were 22 votes against him this time, compared with 20 last time. That amounts to a net loss of 1 since the member who didn't vote last time was present today. Interestingly some Republican House members have started voting for former Representatives, in this case John Boehner and Candice Miller.
If this continues, then I believe the US needs to consider some constitutional and procedural reforms. The House isn't designed to function without a working majority.
If this continues, then I believe the US needs to consider some constitutional and procedural reforms. The House isn't designed to function without a working majority.
No amount of reform can solve the problem which is that the GOP is disintegrating but can still scare enough old white people into voting for it, and has a base of voters who are becoming increasingly detached from reality so their members of congress are torn between acting as if they live in the real world and pretending to live in the fantasy world that exists in their base's heads. You can't fix that problem with rule changes.
If this continues, then I believe the US needs to consider some constitutional and procedural reforms. The House isn't designed to function without a working majority.
I'll note that at the start of the 118th Congress there were 222 Republican members of the House of Representatives. This is, by remarkable coincidence, the number of Democrats in the House at the start of the 117th Congress, a Congress that was noted for producing a huge amount of deeply consequential legislation. I have to agree with @Arethosemyfeet. The problem in this instance isn't the rules, it's the Republicans.
Or to put it a different way, it's not the rules of the House that are the problem. A good case could be made that gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to elect extremist outliers with highly unpopular ideas. Under a normal democracy the penalty for being out of step with the public is losing the next election. Gerrymandering has removed this fear of electoral consequences from the Republican party, leaving only the fear of being primaried within the party. Hence a race to the right.
Or to put it a different way, it's not the rules of the House that are the problem. A good case could be made that gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to elect extremist outliers with highly unpopular ideas. Under a normal democracy the penalty for being out of step with the public is losing the next election. Gerrymandering has removed this fear of electoral consequences from the Republican party, leaving only the fear of being primaried within the party. Hence a race to the right.
That's a fair comment. And you can bet that the sort of person who send someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene to congress is cheering on the antics of the extreme fringe, and praising them for not compromising with "sellout", slightly more reasonable Republicans.
NPR reported there is no way Jordan will be able to gain the gavel. Unlike McCarthy who was able to negotiate his way in to the office, Jordan has nothing to offer. They pointed out every member of the house appropriations committee have voted against Jordan because he never voted for any funding bill. (I think he is one of those people who want to reduce the government to the point it can get squished). And 1/3 of the Republicans that voted against Jordan had voted to certify the Biden election. Jordon fought against it. Elephants have a long memory, you know.
There are only two options on the table right now: allow the Interim Speaker bring bills to the floor, your join the Democrats to form a coalition government.
One thing about trying to change the constitution. A constitutional change takes a joint resolution approved by 2/3 of the members of each house. Then it has to be approved by 3/4 of the states. Sometimes Congress will limit the time legislatures can approve the joint resolution. The Equal Rights Amendment expired before enough legislatures could approve it. On the other hand, the 14th amendment never had an expiration date. I think a Southern state finally approved it in the last decade.
Another way the Constitution can be changed is for 2/3 of the state legislatures call for a constitutional convention. Whatever is approved by the convention would then have to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. There is a danger using this process is the convention could have the power to completely rewrite the constitution. When it seems the states that have called for a constitutional convention have been Red States, one can imagine what the outcome would be like.
NPR reported there is no way Jordan will be able to gain the gavel. Unlike McCarthy who was able to negotiate his way in to the office, Jordan has nothing to offer. They pointed out every member of the house appropriations committee have voted against Jordan because he never voted for any funding bill.
Either they misspoke or you misheard—there are over 30 Republicans on the House Committee on Appropriations, and that’s more than the number of Republicans who voted against Jordan.
NPR reported there is no way Jordan will be able to gain the gavel. Unlike McCarthy who was able to negotiate his way in to the office, Jordan has nothing to offer. They pointed out every member of the house appropriations committee have voted against Jordan because he never voted for any funding bill.
Either they misspoke or you misheard—there are over 30 Republicans on the House Committee on Appropriations, and that’s more than the number of Republicans who voted against Jordan.
If this continues, then I believe the US needs to consider some constitutional and procedural reforms. The House isn't designed to function without a working majority.
I'll note that at the start of the 118th Congress there were 222 Republican members of the House of Representatives. This is, by remarkable coincidence, the number of Democrats in the House at the start of the 117th Congress, a Congress that was noted for producing a huge amount of deeply consequential legislation. I have to agree with @Arethosemyfeet. The problem in this instance isn't the rules, it's the Republicans.
Not so fast. Just because the rules work some or most of the time doesn't mean there isn't a problem. What we have discovered is a political configuration wherein there is no longer a working majority in the House and no way to reasonable way to attain one short of an election. In any other country a snap election would be exactly what the doctor ordered, but that isn't possible in the US. Therein lies the problem.
The US is singularly unique in allowing legislative gridlock to continue almost indefinitely. In a parliamentary system such shenanigans are dealt with in short order by the device of an election.
It is a different symptom of the same issue that plagues the interminable US budget shutdowns: lack of a method to regain legislative confidence by bypassing legislators through dissolution.
This is one of the things that we don't have a rule for because up to this point norms have been sufficient. There is no rule that says everyone in the majority party has to line up behind the person chosen as the party's nominee for speaker; it's just what they've always done. (Always? Usually? @Crœsos, do you know? If not I'll look it up tomorrow.)
The easiest thing I think would be to have a rule saying the speaker is the person who gets the most votes, not 50% plus one. That might eventually have the knock-on effect of weakening the two-party system, though, so I can't see either party being willing to implement such a thing.
And as I'm typing, I'm realizing I don't know why it has to be 50% plus one. Something else to look up tomorrow.
On the other hand, the 14th amendment never had an expiration date. I think a Southern state finally approved it in the last decade.
Most southern states ratified the 14th Amendment not long after it was proposed. For southern states that had been part of the Confederate rebellion this was a condition for re-admission to the Union. That's one reason why Kentucky, a southern state that didn't join the Confederacy, didn't ratify the 14th Amendment until 1976. On the other hand Ohio and New Jersey didn't ratify the 14th Amendment until 2003. Well, they ratified it in the late 1860s, rescinded their ratification shortly thereafter (before enough states had ratified it to add it to the Constitution), and finally got around to re-ratifying it in 2003.
This is one of the things that we don't have a rule for because up to this point norms have been sufficient. There is no rule that says everyone in the majority party has to line up behind the person chosen as the party's nominee for speaker; it's just what they've always done. (Always? Usually? @Crœsos, do you know? If not I'll look it up tomorrow.)
I don't know the entire history of the practice, but I did quotean article by Josh Marshall pointing out that the definition of a caucus in American politics is a "group that collectively decides on actions by majority vote and then acts in unison in a parliamentary context". This may not always be observed, but this is a pretty severe example of a breakdown in party discipline by historical standards.
The easiest thing I think would be to have a rule saying the speaker is the person who gets the most votes, not 50% plus one. That might eventually have the knock-on effect of weakening the two-party system, though, so I can't see either party being willing to implement such a thing.
And as I'm typing, I'm realizing I don't know why it has to be 50% plus one. Something else to look up tomorrow.
I made a seriesofposts back in January pointing out that because the House of Representatives passes legislation on a majority vote basis (50% + 1) being able to assemble the support of a majority of the House in favor of their Speakership is a reasonable test to show that a Speaker will be able to do their job of moving legislation through the House. Using some other basis for electing a Speaker means there's a very good chance they won't be able to move any legislation through the House. Allowing the House to pass legislation on some basis other than majority vote is an invitation to minority rule.
This is one of the things that we don't have a rule for because up to this point norms have been sufficient. There is no rule that says everyone in the majority party has to line up behind the person chosen as the party's nominee for speaker; it's just what they've always done. (Always? Usually? @Crœsos, do you know? If not I'll look it up tomorrow.)
I don't know the entire history of the practice, but I did quotean article by Josh Marshall pointing out that the definition of a caucus in American politics is a "group that collectively decides on actions by majority vote and then acts in unison in a parliamentary context".
Or as one pundit on CNN put it last week, “The House Democrats get that this is a team sport. The House Republicans don’t seem to get that.”
Allowing the House to pass legislation on some basis other than majority vote is an invitation to minority rule.
This is one of the things that we don't have a rule for because up to this point norms have been sufficient. There is no rule that says everyone in the majority party has to line up behind the person chosen as the party's nominee for speaker; it's just what they've always done. (Always? Usually? @Crœsos, do you know? If not I'll look it up tomorrow.)
I don't know the entire history of the practice, but I did quotean article by Josh Marshall pointing out that the definition of a caucus in American politics is a "group that collectively decides on actions by majority vote and then acts in unison in a parliamentary context".
Or as one pundit on CNN put it last week, “The House Democrats get that this is a team sport. The House Republicans don’t seem to get that.”
Who would have thought a party full of Rugged Individualists would be incapable of acting collectively?
Or as one pundit on CNN put it last week, “The House Democrats get that this is a team sport. The House Republicans don’t seem to get that.”
Who would have thought a party full of Rugged Individualists would be incapable of acting collectively?
Yes. "Party that doesn't believe collective action problems are real fails to solve collective action problem" is probably the least surprising development to come out of Congress lately.
NPR reported there is no way Jordan will be able to gain the gavel. Unlike McCarthy who was able to negotiate his way in to the office, Jordan has nothing to offer. They pointed out every member of the house appropriations committee have voted against Jordan because he never voted for any funding bill.
Either they misspoke or you misheard—there are over 30 Republicans on the House Committee on Appropriations, and that’s more than the number of Republicans who voted against Jordan.
I probably misheard.
None the less, a House Committee was cited as having a number of members voting against Jordan because of his positions that affected their work. I can't remember which committee, though.
It looks like Gym Jordan doesn't have the same public humiliation fetish that Kevin McCarthy does. From the Washington Post:
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) will not seek an additional speaker vote Thursday, and he will back a plan to give Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), the temporary speaker, additional powers, according to multiple people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the situation. After two rounds of votes, a group of Republicans had made clear that Jordan did not have enough support to win the speaker’s gavel. With House functions at a standstill, lawmakers can now move forward on a proposal to expand McHenry’s powers.
We'll see how this Speaker Lite proposal works, assuming it's implemented.
Remember Isood's fable of the Wind and Sun making a bet as to whom could get a traveler to remove his cloak? The wind went first. It blew and blew, but the traveler only gathered in his cloak tighter.
This seems to be the tactic the Jordan camp has been using, trying to pressure Republican hold outs to cave in. Some Republican representatives have told of their phones being jammed by MAGA callers. At least one representative released a text sent to his wife threatening him. Most have said they are not backing down.
FOX was on a full court press over the last few days. I just checked one of their headlines. It looks like they are now realizing Jim does not have a path to speakership. Will Jim get the hint?
I notice @Crœsos has posted something. Maybe he has a clearer update.
According to Jordan his campaign for the Speakership is suspended, not abandoned. I'm not sure exactly what he thinks will change to make him more likeable in the next few days/weeks/months, but apparently hope springs eternal.
If the House finds a way to function with Speaker pro tempore McHenry that might make a Jordan Speakership even more remote since a big part of his support is premised on necessity.
A number of members of the Republican Caucus loudly objected to McHenry. Mr. Jordan has said he will talk with the 22 who voted against him before the next vote.
Allowing the House to pass legislation on some basis other than majority vote is an invitation to minority rule.
And we’ve got enough of that already.
Point taken. I'm tempted to quibble that electing the speaker isn't the same as passing legislation, but given that there is no legislation without a speaker -- or a speaker pro tem, I guess, sheesh -- yeah, it would be a bad precedent.
NPR reported there is no way Jordan will be able to gain the gavel. Unlike McCarthy who was able to negotiate his way in to the office, Jordan has nothing to offer. They pointed out every member of the house appropriations committee have voted against Jordan because he never voted for any funding bill.
Either they misspoke or you misheard—there are over 30 Republicans on the House Committee on Appropriations, and that’s more than the number of Republicans who voted against Jordan.
I probably misheard.
None the less, a House Committee was cited as having a number of members voting against Jordan because of his positions that affected their work. I can't remember which committee, though.
Though no names were mentioned, NPR's Morning Edition reiterated the fact that a number of GOP Reps on the Appropriations Committee are staunchly against Jordan's bid for SOTH.
Sede vacante day 17. I may have been wrong about Gym Jordan's appetite for public humiliation. He's apparently pushing for a third vote for Speaker today. Livestreaming here for those who are interested.
I'll tune in if I can. Lot's of repetition this AM of the failed (& still failing) strong-arm tactics of Jordan's camp. His GOP opponents simply don't want anything, except for Jordan not to be SOTH. Right Wing Media (MAGA) is also continuing to make things worse for Jordan with their harassment and intimidation campaigns against Republicans who are voting NO. It's quite something.
Speaker Vote III: this time it's personal. Vote count on the second ballot for Speaker of the House:
Hakeem Jeffries (D) 210
Jim Jordan (R) 194
Steve Scalise (R) 8
Patrick McHenry (R) 6
Lee Zeldin (R) 4
Byron Donalds (R) 2
Kevin McCarthy (R) 2
Tom Emmer (R) 1
Mike Garcia (R) 1
Bruce Westerman (R) 1
Present 0
Not Voting 4
Jordan has lost even more ground among his fellow House Republicans. Four members did not vote today, including presumably two Democrats, just going by the fact that Jeffries has two fewer votes today than he did on Wednesday.
CNN reporter Manu Raju got a comment from McCarthy when he was coming off the floor. He said it was up to Jordan to decide whether he wanted to continue or not and that Republicans are in a very bad place, which both Raju and Jake Tapper interpreted to mean that McCarthy thinks it's time for Rs to move on to other options. But who would they all vote for who would take the job?
Assuming that vote count is correct, 23 Republicans did not vote in that secret ballot. That wouldn't have put Jordan over the top even if they had all voted for him, but you'd think they'd make the effort.
Had you read the letter from the eight MAGA Reps who ousted McCarthy?
It basically says "Yeah, we created this utter shit storm, and we'd do it again, but the rest of you really need to dance in it right along with us, b/c we're all on the same team. You can scold us if you want, but get in here and get covered in this MAGA shit."
“The holdouts against Jim Jordan have no asks, have no goals, have no objectives other than to see the eight of us suffer some consequence for having removed McCarthy,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told reporters after the third Speaker vote, which Jordan lost by his highest amount yet. “So we’ve made them an offer. The eight of us have said that we are willing to accept censure, sanction, suspension, removal from the Republican Conference.”
Or maybe it's not about you, Rep. Gaetz! Maybe the "holdouts" just don't want a Gym Jordan to be their speaker. It's not always about you.
NPR reported there is no way Jordan will be able to gain the gavel. Unlike McCarthy who was able to negotiate his way in to the office, Jordan has nothing to offer. They pointed out every member of the house appropriations committee have voted against Jordan because he never voted for any funding bill.
Either they misspoke or you misheard—there are over 30 Republicans on the House Committee on Appropriations, and that’s more than the number of Republicans who voted against Jordan.
I probably misheard.
None the less, a House Committee was cited as having a number of members voting against Jordan because of his positions that affected their work. I can't remember which committee, though.
Though no names were mentioned, NPR's Morning Edition reiterated the fact that a number of GOP Reps on the Appropriations Committee are staunchly against Jordan's bid for SOTH.
"That affected their work"? They have any intended work? I'd have to see evidence before I believed them on that.
NPR reported there is no way Jordan will be able to gain the gavel. Unlike McCarthy who was able to negotiate his way in to the office, Jordan has nothing to offer. They pointed out every member of the house appropriations committee have voted against Jordan because he never voted for any funding bill.
Either they misspoke or you misheard—there are over 30 Republicans on the House Committee on Appropriations, and that’s more than the number of Republicans who voted against Jordan.
I probably misheard.
None the less, a House Committee was cited as having a number of members voting against Jordan because of his positions that affected their work. I can't remember which committee, though.
Though no names were mentioned, NPR's Morning Edition reiterated the fact that a number of GOP Reps on the Appropriations Committee are staunchly against Jordan's bid for SOTH.
"That affected their work"? They have any intended work? I'd have to see evidence before I believed them on that.
He never voted for an appropriation bill. He staunchly argued against any supplemental bill the committee had approved for disaster relief. He was opposed to the State and Local Tax Deduction on Federal Income taxes.
In other words, he did not have friends on that committee.
Comments
Edit: 17 "other" votes so far. I wonder if Jordan picked up any new supporters at all. What's the over/under on this going to as many ballots as it took to elect McCarthy speaker?
Conversely, there are three new "no" votes against Jordan today: Reps. Buchanan, Ferguson, and Miller-Meeks.
21 GOP votes against, now, surpassing yesterday's total. Yikes.
So Jordan has lost ground ground among his fellow House Republicans. There were 22 votes against him this time, compared with 20 last time. That amounts to a net loss of 1 since the member who didn't vote last time was present today. Interestingly some Republican House members have started voting for former Representatives, in this case John Boehner and Candice Miller.
The House stands adjourned.
No amount of reform can solve the problem which is that the GOP is disintegrating but can still scare enough old white people into voting for it, and has a base of voters who are becoming increasingly detached from reality so their members of congress are torn between acting as if they live in the real world and pretending to live in the fantasy world that exists in their base's heads. You can't fix that problem with rule changes.
I'll note that at the start of the 118th Congress there were 222 Republican members of the House of Representatives. This is, by remarkable coincidence, the number of Democrats in the House at the start of the 117th Congress, a Congress that was noted for producing a huge amount of deeply consequential legislation. I have to agree with @Arethosemyfeet. The problem in this instance isn't the rules, it's the Republicans.
That's a fair comment. And you can bet that the sort of person who send someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene to congress is cheering on the antics of the extreme fringe, and praising them for not compromising with "sellout", slightly more reasonable Republicans.
There are only two options on the table right now: allow the Interim Speaker bring bills to the floor, your join the Democrats to form a coalition government.
One thing about trying to change the constitution. A constitutional change takes a joint resolution approved by 2/3 of the members of each house. Then it has to be approved by 3/4 of the states. Sometimes Congress will limit the time legislatures can approve the joint resolution. The Equal Rights Amendment expired before enough legislatures could approve it. On the other hand, the 14th amendment never had an expiration date. I think a Southern state finally approved it in the last decade.
Another way the Constitution can be changed is for 2/3 of the state legislatures call for a constitutional convention. Whatever is approved by the convention would then have to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. There is a danger using this process is the convention could have the power to completely rewrite the constitution. When it seems the states that have called for a constitutional convention have been Red States, one can imagine what the outcome would be like.
I probably misheard.
Not so fast. Just because the rules work some or most of the time doesn't mean there isn't a problem. What we have discovered is a political configuration wherein there is no longer a working majority in the House and no way to reasonable way to attain one short of an election. In any other country a snap election would be exactly what the doctor ordered, but that isn't possible in the US. Therein lies the problem.
The US is singularly unique in allowing legislative gridlock to continue almost indefinitely. In a parliamentary system such shenanigans are dealt with in short order by the device of an election.
It is a different symptom of the same issue that plagues the interminable US budget shutdowns: lack of a method to regain legislative confidence by bypassing legislators through dissolution.
The easiest thing I think would be to have a rule saying the speaker is the person who gets the most votes, not 50% plus one. That might eventually have the knock-on effect of weakening the two-party system, though, so I can't see either party being willing to implement such a thing.
And as I'm typing, I'm realizing I don't know why it has to be 50% plus one. Something else to look up tomorrow.
Most southern states ratified the 14th Amendment not long after it was proposed. For southern states that had been part of the Confederate rebellion this was a condition for re-admission to the Union. That's one reason why Kentucky, a southern state that didn't join the Confederacy, didn't ratify the 14th Amendment until 1976. On the other hand Ohio and New Jersey didn't ratify the 14th Amendment until 2003. Well, they ratified it in the late 1860s, rescinded their ratification shortly thereafter (before enough states had ratified it to add it to the Constitution), and finally got around to re-ratifying it in 2003.
I don't know the entire history of the practice, but I did quote an article by Josh Marshall pointing out that the definition of a caucus in American politics is a "group that collectively decides on actions by majority vote and then acts in unison in a parliamentary context". This may not always be observed, but this is a pretty severe example of a breakdown in party discipline by historical standards.
I made a series of posts back in January pointing out that because the House of Representatives passes legislation on a majority vote basis (50% + 1) being able to assemble the support of a majority of the House in favor of their Speakership is a reasonable test to show that a Speaker will be able to do their job of moving legislation through the House. Using some other basis for electing a Speaker means there's a very good chance they won't be able to move any legislation through the House. Allowing the House to pass legislation on some basis other than majority vote is an invitation to minority rule.
And we’ve got enough of that already.
Who would have thought a party full of Rugged Individualists would be incapable of acting collectively?
Yes. "Party that doesn't believe collective action problems are real fails to solve collective action problem" is probably the least surprising development to come out of Congress lately.
None the less, a House Committee was cited as having a number of members voting against Jordan because of his positions that affected their work. I can't remember which committee, though.
We'll see how this Speaker Lite proposal works, assuming it's implemented.
This seems to be the tactic the Jordan camp has been using, trying to pressure Republican hold outs to cave in. Some Republican representatives have told of their phones being jammed by MAGA callers. At least one representative released a text sent to his wife threatening him. Most have said they are not backing down.
FOX was on a full court press over the last few days. I just checked one of their headlines. It looks like they are now realizing Jim does not have a path to speakership. Will Jim get the hint?
I notice @Crœsos has posted something. Maybe he has a clearer update.
If the House finds a way to function with Speaker pro tempore McHenry that might make a Jordan Speakership even more remote since a big part of his support is premised on necessity.
Point taken. I'm tempted to quibble that electing the speaker isn't the same as passing legislation, but given that there is no legislation without a speaker -- or a speaker pro tem, I guess, sheesh -- yeah, it would be a bad precedent.
Though no names were mentioned, NPR's Morning Edition reiterated the fact that a number of GOP Reps on the Appropriations Committee are staunchly against Jordan's bid for SOTH.
Jordan has lost even more ground among his fellow House Republicans. Four members did not vote today, including presumably two Democrats, just going by the fact that Jeffries has two fewer votes today than he did on Wednesday.
The House stands adjourned.
Assuming that vote count is correct, 23 Republicans did not vote in that secret ballot. That wouldn't have put Jordan over the top even if they had all voted for him, but you'd think they'd make the effort.
It basically says "Yeah, we created this utter shit storm, and we'd do it again, but the rest of you really need to dance in it right along with us, b/c we're all on the same team. You can scold us if you want, but get in here and get covered in this MAGA shit."
Or maybe it's not about you, Rep. Gaetz! Maybe the "holdouts" just don't want a Gym Jordan to be their speaker. It's not always about you.
And there is, of course, the inevitable Gaetz/Jordan meme.
(ETA redaction, DT Admin))
Doublethink, Admin
"That affected their work"? They have any intended work? I'd have to see evidence before I believed them on that.
I apologize. Thanks for the gentle admonishment. Won’t happen again.
He never voted for an appropriation bill. He staunchly argued against any supplemental bill the committee had approved for disaster relief. He was opposed to the State and Local Tax Deduction on Federal Income taxes.
In other words, he did not have friends on that committee.