Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

118th Congress

Will McCarthy become Speaker of the House?

Will Santos be seated?

When will Biden be impeached?

Stay tuned....
«13456710

Comments

  • It's an odd historical fact that in the history of the Republic, Congress has impeached the president four times. None led to conviction in the Senate.

    50% of all presidential impeachments were of one Donald J Trump.

    But Trump was the subject of 100% of all presidential impeachments that were in line with the constitutional intent and not an act of political hackery.

    The first stat might change but not the second one.

    AFZ
  • Impeachment is a political act. It does not have to depend on a crime.
  • The sad thing the House allows a non member to be elected Speaker, and either some non polarizing figure from outside the House or a sensible politician from within the House could become speaker if enough Democrats and Republicans were willing to vote for someone outside their caucus. But the most likely way this would happen would be if almost all Democrats and a few Republicans United around some compromise candidate, which is why it is unlikely. The republicans that participated in this would be cast as traitors by their party and would likely lose any party primary for reelection. And Democratic leadership might actually be looking g forward to being able to blame Republicans for the fact that nothing gets done in the hopes that it helps them in 2024. And the chaos of Republican infighting and Republican threats about the Debt ceiling - as long as those threats are not realized - also make the Democrats look good. If the Democrats had a Speaker elected with Democratic support and little still got done, even if the filibuster was overturned, then the Democrats would look really bad.

    In NY State, a small group of Democrats allowed Republicans to control the State Senate for years in exchange for committee assignments, funding, and some pet legislation. They managed to be re-elected a few times but eventually they were ousted from kingmaker position the next time Democrats did well enough in an election to not need them - I think they lost Democratic primaries as well. Although I was glad to see them go at the time, given my own politics, it is true that resembling an attempt at coalition politics in a two party system often goes down as a cautionary tale rather than an example to be followed.
  • The sad thing the House allows a non member to be elected Speaker, and either some non polarizing figure from outside the House or a sensible politician from within the House could become speaker if enough Democrats and Republicans were willing to vote for someone outside their caucus. But the most likely way this would happen would be if almost all Democrats and a few Republicans United around some compromise candidate, which is why it is unlikely. The republicans that participated in this would be cast as traitors by their party and would likely lose any party primary for reelection.

    And rightly so. I've always had contempt for the empty-headed notion that politics was some kind of social club and that bipartisan cooperation for its own sake is always a net good. Politics exists to enact a political agenda. Electing a Speaker of the House is a means towards that end, not an end in itself. What, exactly, is the policy goal that would be furthered by electing a wishy-washy House Speaker whose main recommendation is that he doesn't stand for anything other than not standing for anything?
    In NY State, a small group of Democrats allowed Republicans to control the State Senate for years in exchange for committee assignments, funding, and some pet legislation. They managed to be re-elected a few times but eventually they were ousted from kingmaker position the next time Democrats did well enough in an election to not need them - I think they lost Democratic primaries as well. Although I was glad to see them go at the time, given my own politics, it is true that resembling an attempt at coalition politics in a two party system often goes down as a cautionary tale rather than an example to be followed.

    Yeah, that was mostly a maneuver to stymie the political agenda of the statewide Democratic party, like raising the minimum wage. It also served to consolidate more power in the hands of pro-business Governor Andrew Cuomo. Another example is the U.S. Congress in the first half of the twentieth century. While on paper the Congress swung between Democratic and Republican control, in reality control was always in the hands of a coalition of Republicans and Dixiecrats. They mostly used this power to stop any civil rights legislation passing and to crush unions. Whether you see this as good or bad depends on whether you put more weight on civil rights or bipartisan coalition building.

    Part of the problem here is that American political parties are themselves examples of coalition building, rather than philosophically unified entities like we often see in parliamentary democracies. Trying to force cooperation between coalitions that exist because they have conflicting agendas is the kind of exercise in futility pursued by those who regard politics as their personal social club, not something that affects people's lives.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    The first vote for Speaker of the House has been counted:
    • Kevin McCarthy (R) 202
    • Hakeem Jeffries (D) 211
    • Andy Biggs (R) 10
    • Others 9
    • Present 0

    By my math that means two House members did not vote. Still, not an auspicious start for Kevin McCarthy.

    For those who are wondering, the Speaker is elected by a majority of the ballots cast for a person. Votes of"present" (or votes not cast) do not count. The fact that the anti-McCarthy faction isn't simply voting "present" as a form of registering protest means they want to make him suffer, or they did the math and realized that voting "present" would mean Speaker Jeffries.

    The last time (before today) that the election of the Speaker of the House wasn't decided on the first ballot was 1923.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The sad thing the House allows a non member to be elected Speaker, and either some non polarizing figure from outside the House or a sensible politician from within the House could become speaker if enough Democrats and Republicans were willing to vote for someone outside their caucus. But the most likely way this would happen would be if almost all Democrats and a few Republicans United around some compromise candidate, which is why it is unlikely. The republicans that participated in this would be cast as traitors by their party and would likely lose any party primary for reelection.

    And rightly so. I've always had contempt for the empty-headed notion that politics was some kind of social club and that bipartisan cooperation for its own sake is always a net good. Politics exists to enact a political agenda. Electing a Speaker of the House is a means towards that end, not an end in itself. What, exactly, is the policy goal that would be furthered by electing a wishy-washy House Speaker whose main recommendation is that he doesn't stand for anything other than not standing for anything?
    In NY State, a small group of Democrats allowed Republicans to control the State Senate for years in exchange for committee assignments, funding, and some pet legislation. They managed to be re-elected a few times but eventually they were ousted from kingmaker position the next time Democrats did well enough in an election to not need them - I think they lost Democratic primaries as well. Although I was glad to see them go at the time, given my own politics, it is true that resembling an attempt at coalition politics in a two party system often goes down as a cautionary tale rather than an example to be followed.

    Yeah, that was mostly a maneuver to stymie the political agenda of the statewide Democratic party, like raising the minimum wage. It also served to consolidate more power in the hands of pro-business Governor Andrew Cuomo. Another example is the U.S. Congress in the first half of the twentieth century. While on paper the Congress swung between Democratic and Republican control, in reality control was always in the hands of a coalition of Republicans and Dixiecrats. They mostly used this power to stop any civil rights legislation passing and to crush unions. Whether you see this as good or bad depends on whether you put more weight on civil rights or bipartisan coalition building.

    Part of the problem here is that American political parties are themselves examples of coalition building, rather than philosophically unified entities like we often see in parliamentary democracies. Trying to force cooperation between coalitions that exist because they have conflicting agendas is the kind of exercise in futility pursued by those who regard politics as their personal social club, not something that affects people's lives.

    Bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake is pointless. And I generally prefer strong political parties over weak ones. I think the possibility of people looking outside their own party caucus fora speaker or agreeing on a compromise candidate is only one that seems favorable in the current climate where one party measures its success on how adept it is at sabotaging the workings of Congress and the federal government. Cross-party collaboration in opposition to political nihilism does seem worthwhile.

    Also, I’m not clear with another of your points here - are Grand Coalitions always bad, or are they only bad in Presidential, two-party, and/or first past the post systems?
  • If McCarthy has assuredly already offered the Republican holdouts a change in House rules that make it easier to eliminate the Speaker at any time - and if Trump himself wants them to let the House move on - what is it exactly that the holdouts want and think they can get?
  • The second vote has been completed. 19 voted for Jordan. 203 voted for McCarthy. 212 voted for Jefferies, the Democratic Leader.
  • This link answers my question about the holdouts’ current demands:

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/03/us/house-speaker-vote/heres-what-mccarthys-detractors-are-demanding?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

    Sorry about the paywall if you encounter it.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    I am confused, why hasn’t Jeffries won ?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    I am confused, why hasn’t Jeffries won ?

    He needs a majority of votes cast for a person, not simply a plurality.
  • I am confused, why hasn’t Jeffries won ?

    I think he needs a majority of votes of those present, not counting those who vote “present” (ie, who abstain). So he needs 218 votes unless more people start voting “present”. There are 435 members of the House when there are no vacancies.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    I think he needs a majority of votes of those present, not counting those who vote “present” (ie, who abstain). So he needs 218 votes unless more people start voting “present”. There are 435 members of the House when there are no vacancies.

    There is currently one vacancy in the House (Rep. Donald McEachin died last month) so there are currently 434 members, which leaves the threshold of victory at 218. That number will change if members start voting "present" or if anyone is absent during a vote. It may be a long night at the Capitol.

    Interesting question: If there is no Speaker who has the power to adjourn the House?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    They can adjourn by majority vote.
  • Looks like he's lost a third vote, with perhaps one additional republican moving in to his camp.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited January 2023
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I am confused, why hasn’t Jeffries won ?

    He needs a majority of votes cast for a person, not simply a plurality.

    OIC, what I would have thought of as an absolute majority. Is it possible the republicans will switch en mass to another Republican candidate ?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    Looks like he's lost a third vote, with perhaps one additional republican moving in to his camp.

    If by "he" you mean Kevin McCarthy, he seems to have lost one supporter. The count:
    • Hakeem Jeffries (D) 212
    • Kevin McCarthy (R) 202
    • Gym Jordan (R) 20

    So someone who voted for McCarthy on the first and second ballots voted for Jordan on the third.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    (I assume there is no chance of the Dems seducing 6 republicans ?)
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    So the possibilities are:

    1. The republican holdouts decide that they've made their point, and vote McCarthy
    2. A bunch of Dems vote "present" to hand the victory to McCarthy
    3. Another republican candidate is able to attract support from the whole party
    4. Some moderate R gets enough votes that all the Dems decide to vote for them too.

    So at the moment, the people who aren't voting for McCarthy are the far right crazies (Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert and the like). I don't see any plausible chance of republicans nominating a moderate to try and get Dem support (not that the House has many republican moderates).

    It's interesting to think about whether it's in the Dems' best interest to vote present, and hand McCarthy the victory, or to hold the line and dare the Republicans to unite behind Jordan or one of his fellow travelers, in the hope that the more extreme rhetoric will play worse for the republicans in 2 years.

    (Yeah, it's technically possible that a handful of Rs could vote present and hand the gavel to Jeffries, but that seems like such obvious political suicide that it's not realistic.)
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Looks like he's lost a third vote, with perhaps one additional republican moving in to his camp.

    If by "he" you mean Kevin McCarthy, he seems to have lost one supporter. The count:
    • Hakeem Jeffries (D) 212
    • Kevin McCarthy (R) 202
    • Gym Jordan (R) 20

    So someone who voted for McCarthy on the first and second ballots voted for Jordan on the third.

    Rep. Byron Donalds was the voter who switched. He's another "freedom caucus" far-right type. It'll start to get interesting if a less extreme republican or two switches to Jordan.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Interesting question: If there is no Speaker who has the power to adjourn the House?

    The clerk of the House from the previous congress presumably handles calls to adjourn until a speaker is elected just as she is presiding over the election of a new speaker.

  • "Moderate" Republican? Are there any of those left?
  • (Yeah, it's technically possible that a handful of Rs could vote present and hand the gavel to Jeffries, but that seems like such obvious political suicide that it's not realistic.)

    A more realistic possibility than Republicans voting "present" is that enough Republicans (11) miss a vote handing the gavel to Jeffries. It's a long shot, I'll admit, but given the lack of party discipline displayed by Republicans so far "getting bored and wandering off" has to be a real possibility for at least some of their caucus members.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    (Yeah, it's technically possible that a handful of Rs could vote present and hand the gavel to Jeffries, but that seems like such obvious political suicide that it's not realistic.)

    A more realistic possibility than Republicans voting "present" is that enough Republicans (11) miss a vote handing the gavel to Jeffries. It's a long shot, I'll admit, but given the lack of party discipline displayed by Republicans so far "getting bored and wandering off" has to be a real possibility for at least some of their caucus members.

    Or deciding by some sort of convoluted squirrel logic that a Democratic speaker enhances their ability to "trigger the libs" or whatever substitutes for policy and public service among GOP members of congress these days.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    What happens if nobody shifts their position? Is it possible that ultimately no Speaker will be elected? Would the House then be unable to function?
  • What happens if nobody shifts their position? Is it possible that ultimately no Speaker will be elected? Would the House then be unable to function?

    The previous record is 2 months and 133 votes so I suspect no-one knows for sure. Not being able to elect a speaker is a symptom of a dysfunctional house, I would suggest, not a cause.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    So if McCarthy cannot achieve enough votes to win, who are the potential compromise candidates in the Republican caucus?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Compromise does not seem to be a word the far-right side of that party has heard.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Would it be advantageous for the Democrats to support McCarthy in order to annoy the extreme Republicans?
  • Caissa wrote: »
    So if McCarthy cannot achieve enough votes to win, who are the potential compromise candidates in the Republican caucus?

    Well that's the sticking point, isn't it? At the moment no one else in the Republican caucus seems to actually want to be Speaker. It could be said that McCarthy has opposition but no rivals.
    Would it be advantageous for the Democrats to support McCarthy in order to annoy the extreme Republicans?

    The Democratic position seems to be that it's not their job to fix the Republicans' mess.
  • Would it be advantageous for the Democrats to support McCarthy in order to annoy the extreme Republicans?

    Given the McCarthy's stated intention is to set up phoney investigations into anything and everything tangentially connected to the Biden administration I can't see any particular reason for them to do so. Heck, if they wait long enough some of the GOP caucus may be in custody and unable to vote, surrendering the majority.
  • Would it be advantageous for the Democrats to support McCarthy in order to annoy the extreme Republicans?
    Given the McCarthy's stated intention is to set up phoney investigations into anything and everything tangentially connected to the Biden administration I can't see any particular reason for them to do so. Heck, if they wait long enough some of the GOP caucus may be in custody and unable to vote, surrendering the majority.

    My guess is that the Democratic calculus on this matter is that every day the House spends stomping on Kevin McCarthy's dreams is another day it's not investigating Hunter Biden's dick pics or demanding to know the location of Anthony Fauci's secret volcano island research base.

    For those interested in watching the disaster live, today's House session is livestreaming here.
  • Apparently Byron Donalds of Florida is the new choice of the anti-McCarthy Republicans on the fourth ballot for Speaker of the House.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    The vote count on the fourth ballot:
    • Hakeem Jeffries (D) 212
    • Kevin McCarthy (R) 201
    • Byron Donalds (R) 20
    • Present 1

    So Jeffries and the not!McCarthy candidate are where they were on the third ballot and McCarthy lost one supporter (Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana) to "present".
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    The loss of one vote to McCarthy actually favors Jefferies.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The loss of one vote to McCarthy actually favors Jefferies.

    Yes. It lowers the threshold of victory from 218 votes to 217 votes. As I noted earlier it would take at least eleven Republicans either voting "present" (or failing to cast a vote) for Jeffries to win the Speakership, assuming no Democrats likewise vote "present" (or for one of the Republican candidates).
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    McCarthy has lost round 4 "despite" Trump reiterating his support for him. The small section of the Freedom Caucus continues to go rogue.
  • Looks like the not!McCarthy Republicans are sticking with Byron Donalds as their candidate for the fifth ballot.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    What would happen if there was a Dem speaker in a majority GOP house ?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2023
    What would happen if there was a Dem speaker in a majority GOP house ?

    The Speaker's main power comes from being the presiding officer of the House, deciding who gets recognized to speak (and propose business) and who doesn't. This can have big effects not just on what legislation is considered but also who serves on which committees.

    The results of the fifth ballot:
    • Hakeem Jeffries (D) 212
    • Kevin McCarthy (R) 201
    • Byron Donalds (R) 20
    • Present 1

    Same as last time though there were more members who cast their vote on the second round, which probably indicates more side discussions and proposed deals.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Why is this the system? Why don't they have STV or a "candidate with lowest number of votes drops out each round" deal?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    For contrast, this site discusses how the Canadian House of Commons elects its Speaker.
    https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/SpeakerandOtherPresidingOfficers/c_g_speakerotherpresidingofficers-e.html
  • Why is this the system? Why don't they have STV or a "candidate with lowest number of votes drops out each round" deal?

    The idea is that the speaker can actually command majority support. Ranked voting schemes are great if what you want is a one-and-done, pick the best compromise candidate (however you define "compromise") kind of solution.

    If what you want is a system that encourages consensus and coalition-building, you want something more like this, where you have multiple rounds with discussion and horse trading between each.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    I mean is that what it encourages, or does it encourage bribery - give me this and I’ll ensure your area gets first dibs on the special project funding budget (or whatever) ?
  • The way the Freedom Caucus is acting, it reminds me of an Anarchist Third Party. The only way I can see a solution is to reach across the isle for a compromise speaker. The only way things will get done is through bipartisan support.
  • I’m surprised the anti-McCarthy group isn’t doing more to make themselves and their demands more visible to the public. I’m sure they are sending fundraising emails that are lauding their exploits but shouldn’t they be trying to gain sympathy among the Republican base, donors, activists, and right-wing media figures? Maybe they have been and I in my bubble haven’t noticed?
  • Why is this the system? Why don't they have STV or a "candidate with lowest number of votes drops out each round" deal?
    The idea is that the speaker can actually command majority support. Ranked voting schemes are great if what you want is a one-and-done, pick the best compromise candidate (however you define "compromise") kind of solution.

    If what you want is a system that encourages consensus and coalition-building, you want something more like this, where you have multiple rounds with discussion and horse trading between each.

    Indeed. Because the House of Representatives operates on a majority-vote basis it is considered critical that the Speaker demonstrate that he or she can gather the support of a majority of House members when necessary. A good justification for this is that Congress considers a lot of very complicated bills with a lot of different moving parts in them so it's nearly impossible to do a ranked choice vote on (for example) a defense appropriation bill. It's hard enough to assemble one omnibus bill. Assembling multiple versions that might have omissions that aren't immediately obvious seems like a recipe for disaster.
    I’m surprised the anti-McCarthy group isn’t doing more to make themselves and their demands more visible to the public. I’m sure they are sending fundraising emails that are lauding their exploits but shouldn’t they be trying to gain sympathy among the Republican base, donors, activists, and right-wing media figures? Maybe they have been and I in my bubble haven’t noticed?

    They don't have very much in the way of actual demands, other than not wanting Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker of the House. This has happened to Kevin before, in 2015. That year he made the mistake of publicly saying that the multiple Benghazi investigations were just a partisan exercise to tarnish the reputation of Hillary Clinton. There were also allegations that McCarthy was having an affair with Congresswoman Renee Ellmers which, in those simpler pre-Trump times, was considered unacceptable so Paul Ryan got the Speakership.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited January 2023
    Why is this the system? Why don't they have STV or a "candidate with lowest number of votes drops out each round" deal?

    The idea is that the speaker can actually command majority support. Ranked voting schemes are great if what you want is a one-and-done, pick the best compromise candidate (however you define "compromise") kind of solution.

    If what you want is a system that encourages consensus and coalition-building, you want something more like this, where you have multiple rounds with discussion and horse trading between each.

    But that is not how the US system is set up. It is set up envisaging a 2-party system with no need for coalitions. A "one-and-done" procedure is exactly what is needed here. I cannot think of a realistic US situation in which the current Speaker-election rules could be beneficial.
  • Crœsos wrote: »

    They don't have very much in the way of actual demands, other than not wanting Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker of the House.

    If I've understood correctly they're mostly asking for rule changes so that if they vote him in now they can kick him out more easily later.
  • But that is not how the US system is set up. It is set up envisaging a 2-party system with no need for coalitions. A "one-and-done" procedure is exactly what is needed here.

    It's more complicated than that. The U.S. system is set up envisaging the two major political parties as coalitions. For example, the current Democratic Party is a coalition of (primarily) liberals, African-Americans, organized labor, and women's rights advocates. (There is obviously some overlap between these factions.) What we are witnessing right now is the fracturing of the coalition that is the Republican Party (or at least its House members).
    I cannot think of a realistic US situation in which the current Speaker-election rules could be beneficial.

    It prevents the election of a Speaker who cannot perform their duties because they cannot command the support of a majority of the House. Unless the House transitions to passing legislation on some other basis than a majority vote, this seems the most reasonable test for the Speakership.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    They don't have very much in the way of actual demands, other than not wanting Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker of the House.
    If I've understood correctly they're mostly asking for rule changes so that if they vote him in now they can kick him out more easily later.

    That's not really a demand since McCarthy has already capitulated on that point.
Sign In or Register to comment.