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 don't see any appetite in the republicans to propose a compromise that would be acceptable to the democrats. And from the democrat point of view, they're probably firmly ensconced in the "never interrupt your opponent while he's making a mistake" viewpoint.
Today, Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana shifted her vote from McCarthy to present. Perhaps that's signalling something - but it's probably not signalling more than "come and talk to me". As @Crœsos has noted, it would take 11 republicans to vote "present" (or be absent, or otherwise not vote for a named person" to hand the gavel to Jeffries, and they're probably taking some care not to accidentally do that.
It sounds as if the speaker is a bit like a prime minister (who gets appointed on the basis they can “command the confidence of the house”) rather than like the speaker we have here in the uk - who is more procedural.
As @Crœsos has noted, it would take 11 republicans to vote "present" (or be absent, or otherwise not vote for a named person" to hand the gavel to Jeffries, and they're probably taking some care not to accidentally do that.
It sounds as if the speaker is a bit like a prime minister (who gets appointed on the basis they can “command the confidence of the house”) rather than like the speaker we have here in the uk - who is more procedural.
Somewhere between PM, speaker and Leader of the House in terms of function, I would say.
It sounds as if the speaker is a bit like a prime minister (who gets appointed on the basis they can “command the confidence of the house”) rather than like the speaker we have here in the uk - who is more procedural.
Despite being behind the vice president in the order of presidential succession, the Speaker of the House is arguably the second most powerful elected official in the federal government.
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?
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?
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
For as long as their guy isn’t President, at least.
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.
Why cannot the Speaker perform their duties without commanding a majority of the House? The Speaker is not part of the executive and need not see any legislation passed. It is already possible - almost usual - for the House to be opposed to the executive branch, so why would it be any worse for the House to be opposed to the Speaker?
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.
Why cannot the Speaker perform their duties without commanding a majority of the House? The Speaker is not part of the executive and need not see any legislation passed. It is already possible - almost usual - for the House to be opposed to the executive branch, so why would it be any worse for the House to be opposed to the Speaker?
I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but the House of Representatives is part of the legislative branch. As such, its function is to pass legislation. Furthermore, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Art. I, § 7, cl. 1), which is kind of an important government function. Part of the Speaker's function is to set the agenda of the House, which bills get voted on, who serves on which committees, that sort of thing. A Speaker who can bring legislation to a vote but not have enough support to pass it is a problem, as is a Speaker who can block votes on majority-backed legislation. To put it bluntly, if a majority can't back a single Speaker there is no reason to believe that a majority will be available to pass other important House business.
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.
Why cannot the Speaker perform their duties without commanding a majority of the House? The Speaker is not part of the executive and need not see any legislation passed. It is already possible - almost usual - for the House to be opposed to the executive branch, so why would it be any worse for the House to be opposed to the Speaker?
I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but the House of Representatives is part of the legislative branch. As such, its function is to pass legislation. Furthermore, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Art. I, § 7, cl. 1), which is kind of an important government function. Part of the Speaker's function is to set the agenda of the House, which bills get voted on, who serves on which committees, that sort of thing. A Speaker who can bring legislation to a vote but not have enough support to pass it is a problem, as is a Speaker who can block votes on majority-backed legislation. To put it bluntly, if a majority can't back a single Speaker there is no reason to believe that a majority will be available to pass other important House business.
Yes, I understand that Congress is the legislative branch. And I understand that raising revenue requires legislation. And I understand that a Speaker unfriendly to a proposed legislative programme could make it very difficult for that programme to be put into practice.
However what I do not understand is why this is worse than the very common situation where there is (say) a Republican Speaker of the House leading a Republican majority, which will therefore be hostile to the legislative programme desired by a Democratic president, or vice-versa.
However what I do not understand is why this is worse than the very common situation where there is (say) a Republican Speaker of the House leading a Republican majority, which will therefore be hostile to the legislative programme desired by a Democratic president, or vice-versa.
Because there's a lot of legislation that needs to be passed even in a situation of divided government. For example, Art. I, § 8, cl. 12 of the U.S. Constitution states Congress has the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". That two year limit means that at least once per House term military spending has to be renewed. That's just one example. The general business of government requires a certain amount of legislation be passed, which requires a majority in both houses of Congress. That's why "can you assemble a majority to vote for you?" is a very reasonable test for the person responsible for getting legislation passed by the House.
Or to put it more bluntly, if Kevin McCarthy can't prevent a bunch of defectors from voting against him for Speaker, there's no reason to believe he'd be any better at preventing defectors from derailing necessary legislation.
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.
Why cannot the Speaker perform their duties without commanding a majority of the House? The Speaker is not part of the executive and need not see any legislation passed. It is already possible - almost usual - for the House to be opposed to the executive branch, so why would it be any worse for the House to be opposed to the Speaker?
Because in the case of the House being controlled by one party and the president belonging to the other party, part of the agenda of the majority party in the House is to keep the president from pursuing his or her agenda. But in the case of a Speaker without the support of a majority of the House, the House majority would be tying its own hands, not the president’s. And as @Crœsos points out, that could easily lead to untenable situations.
When you say “the Speaker need not see any legislation passed,” that seems to assume a Westminster system-style Speaker. In the US system, the Speaker has a partisan role along with the role of presiding officer, and that partisan role includes seeing that the majority party passes the legislation that matters to it.
CNN is now reporting McCarthy has made the following concessions to the freedom caucus:
To allow for one member of the house to move for the vacation of the speaker's chair. Under previous rules, it would have taken 100 members to call for the vacation of the speaker's chair. McCarthy had proposed five members needed to move for the vacation of the chair, but the freedom caucus wanted more.
To allow for a member of the freedom caucus to be on the House Rules Committee. This is a powerful committee that determines which bill will be considered on the floor of the house.
To address the southern border issue.
The problem with these concessions is some moderate Republicans may think this is going too far, especially weakening the power of the Speaker. One just might see someone moving to vacate the speaker's chair at least every day the Congress is in session.
Having a Freedom Caucus member on the House Rules Committee could really slow down, if not clog, the legislative process.
There are still some other demands the Freedom Caucus would also like
Investigating the January Sixth Special Committee
The ability to defund parts of the government, like the FBI and the office of special counsel investigating Trump.
And the Weaponization of the Federal Government--whatever that means.
I know the Freedom Caucus would love to defund the special counsel investigating Trump because several of the Caucus members have also been named as persons of interest in the January 6 riots. They fear they will also be indicted for their actions.
In the US 2-party system described above, part of each party's normal function is to keep the other party out of power (by (a) winning elections and (b) by opposing, defeating and/or modifying proposed legislation as it comes up for vote. Increasingly, though, two other factors have come into play in US politics:
1. the growing number of voters who align with neither party, but who register as Independent and select candidates, election by election and issue by issue, from either/both Republican and Democratic wings based on stances for particular .legislative items
2. a growing number of voters apparently increasingly persuaded that the best governance is also the least governance, and the best way forward is to gum up the works so the system cannot function effectively as originally designed. This, I submit, is what motivates the 20 (or so) Republican nay-sayers to McCarthy are up to. We shall see . . .
CNN is now reporting McCarthy has made the following concessions to the freedom caucus: . . . .
For clarity, the gang of Republicans that is voting against McCarthy are members of the Freedom Caucus, but they form a minority of that caucus. The majority of Freedom Caucus members had been voting for McCarthy, and the leader of the caucus, Jim Jordan, endorsed McCarthy.
So McCarthy isn’t negotiating with the Freedom Caucus at this point, nor is it the Freedom Caucus that is demanding more concessions. Whose negotiating with a small group of GOP members of the House who are also members of the Freedom Caucus.
Livestream of day 3 of the Speaker election here. Either McCarthy has made a deal with the holdouts or the House has decided to kick McCarthy a few more times.
What happens if McCarthy pulls a Trump, as in promises the moon on a stick to the holdouts - gets elected - and then says, on mature consideration I’ve changed my mind I am not going to do any of that ?
Looks like McCarthy will lose the seventh vote. There are already enough people that voted for Donald that will deny the seat and they have yet to get through the Ds in the roll call.
What happens if McCarthy pulls a Trump, as in promises the moon on a stick to the holdouts - gets elected - and then says, on mature consideration I’ve changed my mind I am not going to do any of that ?
Surely he's demonstrated how unsuitable (lazy, incompetent and lacking understanding for any detailed work) he is? Surely even most Republicns wouldn't give him their vote?
No - it's not in that sense a serious vote. It's Matt Gaetz making a point about how he wants to have an irrational Trumpist as speaker, without having to care which person. But as Trump is a named human, a vote for him doesn't diminish the total number of voters in the way that a "present" vote does.
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) ?
You call that bribery. I call that compromise and dealmaking.
I’d identify compromise as two sides reaching a shared position on something. So for example, when the emergency Covid legislation was being rushed through Parliament, the opposition compromised on some aspects of the extent of the regulations in exchange for a shorter time period for the legislation to expire unless it was voted through again. Whereas the government compromised in having that shorter time period in order to get agreement on more of the regulations they wanted.
Whereas, if you say - vote on my legislation and in exchange I will fund a housing project in your constituency - that strikes me as unethical. That is not striking a deal in the national interest on the point at issue, it’s allowing yourself to be bought off.
Whereas, if you say - vote on my legislation and in exchange I will fund a housing project in your constituency - that strikes me as unethical. That is not striking a deal in the national interest on the point at issue, it’s allowing yourself to be bought off.
Where would you rank "I'll support your legislation on increasing unemployment benefits, which I think would be bad for the economy, if you'll support my legislation on increased tax breaks for investment, which I think will benefit the economy"?
That doesn't have the obvious "bringing home federal dollars" bribery component that your example does, but does still have a quid-pro-quo.
What is the point of having the successive votes so soon after each other, when it is clear that nothing substantative has changed? Wouldn't it be better to wait a day or two before trying again?
What is the point of having the successive votes so soon after each other, when it is clear that nothing substantative has changed? Wouldn't it be better to wait a day or two before trying again?
As @Gwai says, the McCarthy Republicans lack the votes to adjourn, because the rebel Republicans have decided not to support that and the Democrats don’t see any benefit in saving the Republicans from themselves. So the House can’t adjourn, and it can’t do any other business until it has elected a Speaker.
Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, another far-right republican, is now attracting a few votes from the same right-wing suspects.
CNN says that at least 4 republicans have to leave town tomorrow for some sort of family thing. That's not enough to change the overall numbers, though, but if enough people don't show up...
What is the point of having the successive votes so soon after each other, when it is clear that nothing substantative has changed? Wouldn't it be better to wait a day or two before trying again?
As @Gwai says, the McCarthy Republicans lack the votes to adjourn, because the rebel Republicans have decided not to support that and the Democrats don’t see any benefit in saving the Republicans from themselves. So the House can’t adjourn, and it can’t do any other business until it has elected a Speaker.
Okay.... that seems dumb but okay.... still, why bother having the votes?
I don't see a winning scenario to this situation. The House is required to have a Speaker to function. A non-functioning House is a disaster for the entire country, not just for one political party. When everything crashes to a halt because the House cannot function, it will be cold comfort for the Democrats to say "It's the Republicans fault." It is still misery for all. Dancing on the grave doesn't make it better. The country is screwed.
So, yeah, okay, maybe enough Rs leave town or vote present to give Jeffries the Speaker spot...but I doubt he wants it. He would be a Speaker with NO majority and, as explained by other s earlier, that is a nightmare. The House will technically be able to function because it has a Speaker, but nothing can really be passed because the Speaker really doesn't have command of a majority for anything. It is slightly less bad than the no-speaker option, but it is a disaster politically because the Republicans (especially the far-right fruitcakes) will try to spin it as all being the Dems fault (because a Dem is Speaker) even though the situation was caused by the far-righters. And, in any event, the country is screwed.
But let's suppose the Dems realise this trap and avoid having their candidate be Speaker, for example by voting present or fleeing town. This allows Mc Carthy to be Speaker. Same probelm, though, He doesn't command a majority any more than Jeffries could. Nothing can really be passed. Everyhting grinds to a halt. This is a better outcome from the Dem point of view because they can blame the Republicans (after all, the Speaker is a Repub), but the end result is the same: the country is screwed.
Blaming each other doesn't change that. Pointing fingers at each other doesn't change that. Dancing on each others graves doesn't change that.
The thing is, Biden realizes this. It isn't a coincidence that he is strongly beating the bipartisan drum. He is doing everything he can do to head this off. Some sort of magical bipartisan majority that does not pay attention to party lines is the only possible winning scenario from this mess, but I don't see how we get there. It would require politicians whose income comes from slavishly following party lines to ignore that, ignore party lines and altruistically come together for the good of the country. But "politician" is pretty much the antonym to "altruistic."
Biden discussing bipartisanship makes the Republicans look weaker also. Emphasizing how reasonable people compromise across the aisle. While the Republican party can't even compromise internally
What will eventually happen is that the Republicans will work it out. But the longer it takes, the worse they look. House members all have to be re-elected every two years. If people get an image of the 118th congress as useless because of Republicans that will be the Democrats' advantage. And the way the hard-liners are making a scene, I suspect they plan to make a habit of this behavior.
Way I see it the hard-liners are and will be a problem. When scenes like this let the rest of the country notice it that's good.
It's worth pointing out that we've had many government shutdowns in recent years, when the house and senate are controlled by different parties and haven't been able to agree a budget.
The way the US system works, if you don't pass a spending resolution authorizing new spending, basically everything just stops. They do often end up passing a continuing resolution (basically, "keep everything going at last year's rates 'cause we can't agree on this new thing") but often not until a bunch of government workers have been sent home for a while.
Brinkmanship has been a standard tactic in recent years.
It's worth pointing out that we've had many government shutdowns in recent years, when the house and senate are controlled by different parties and haven't been able to agree a budget.
The way the US system works, if you don't pass a spending resolution authorizing new spending, basically everything just stops. They do often end up passing a continuing resolution (basically, "keep everything going at last year's rates 'cause we can't agree on this new thing") but often not until a bunch of government workers have been sent home for a while.
Brinkmanship has been a standard tactic in recent years.
You probably know this, but for Shipmates across the Pond and elsewhere, in the event of a government shutdown, the military and "essential" federal employees still have to show up for work (although their salaries are not paid), and Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements are still paid, but a whole lot of things (National Parks, for example) just shut down. It's pretty embarrassing for Americans who encounter tourists who have come to see the parks.
As for a House of Representatives without a Speaker - the Speaker, the other leaders of both parties in the House, and members of the House Intelligence Committee all normally receive regular intelligence briefings that they cannot receive if there is no Speaker (because none of the members of the House are sworn in until after the Speaker is chosen). So legislative oversight of the intelligence and national security apparatus cannot happen in the House until there is a Speaker. At least it occurs in the Senate.
The Speaker has almost complete control over what gets voted on or not in the House. They can't prevent a member from submitting a bill, but they can put it at the bottom of the pile so that it never gets taken up before the end of that term. The House, unlike the Senate, doesn't have a filibuster, so the time for debating anything up for a vote is limited according to the rules set for that term after the Speaker is chosen. The House has to approve the rules but the Speaker usually has a lot of say in what rules are put before the House to approve or disapprove. In recent decades, House rules have allowed a Speaker to generally limit debate, limit amendments, and rush legislation through if they want. The rebels want to get a Speaker who will set rules that weaken the Speaker's own power and allow individual members more of a say especially in the amendment process (in addition to their other demands). The problem is that the members who want these reforms want to use them to continue to freeze the operation of the House or topple the Speaker whenever they are dissatisfied.
For those who are interested in watching, the House is set to make another attempt at selecting a Speaker at noon EST today and it will be livestreamed here.
There has been some commentary about how C-SPAN* is covering these Speaker votes, having a lot more camera work showing various House members conferring with each other on the sidelines as the votes are taken. This is different that C-SPAN's usual practice of focusing tightly on the well of the House (or Senate) and the difference is that the Speaker of the House usually exercises tight control on where the cameras can be pointed and what can be shown. Since there's no Speaker now C-SPAN is free to broadcast in whatever manner it likes and has decided to show dramatic clusters and conversations that we normally don't get to see. Some have complained about C-SPAN's broadcasts being "theatrical", but others have pointed out that fixed camera angles and dictated shots are theatre and what C-SPAN is doing right now is giving us a glimpse backstage.
*For those who don't know C-SPAN is a cable network that mostly broadcasts government events and panel discussions of government events.
So apparently there has been some kind of deal cut that moved some of the not!McCarthy votes, but it wasn't enough to get McCarthy the Speakership on this round of voting. Every former not!McCarthy Republican (plus Victoria Spartz, who kept voting 'present') got a round of applause from their fellow Republicans when the voted for McCarthy on this ballot. Jeffries lost a vote because David Trone of Maryland did not cast a ballot this round.
Two Republicans have family duties to attend two. One's mother's funeral is this weekend. The other's baby, as I understand it, was seriously ill and he had to go be with his wife at the hospital. Congress is now voted to recess until these two Republicans will become available.
A bizarre vox pop from a Republican voter presented by the BBC... AFAICS saying that it is very healthy for this to happen, but that McCarthy should never have allowed it...
What is the point of having the successive votes so soon after each other, when it is clear that nothing substantative has changed? Wouldn't it be better to wait a day or two before trying again?
As @Gwai says, the McCarthy Republicans lack the votes to adjourn, because the rebel Republicans have decided not to support that and the Democrats don’t see any benefit in saving the Republicans from themselves. So the House can’t adjourn, and it can’t do any other business until it has elected a Speaker.
Okay.... that seems dumb but okay.... still, why bother having the votes?
Sorry for not answering this sooner. The rules require that in the event a Speaker is not elected, the House proceed to another roll call vote, unless a motion to adjourn is made and carried. The only other alternative, as I understand it, would be a motion to change the manner of election, such as to use secret ballot rather than roll call voting, or to allow for election by plurality rather than by majority. But absent a motion to adjourn or a motion to change the manner of election, the Principal Clerk, who is presiding, is required to move forward with roll call votes to elect a Speaker.
A bizarre vox pop from a Republican voter presented by the BBC... AFAICS saying that it is very healthy for this to happen, but that McCarthy should never have allowed it...
If he would not have allowed it, he would have a full rebellion on his hands. Besides, at this time, he has no authority over the house.
What is the point of having the successive votes so soon after each other, when it is clear that nothing substantative has changed? Wouldn't it be better to wait a day or two before trying again?
As @Gwai says, the McCarthy Republicans lack the votes to adjourn, because the rebel Republicans have decided not to support that and the Democrats don’t see any benefit in saving the Republicans from themselves. So the House can’t adjourn, and it can’t do any other business until it has elected a Speaker.
Okay.... that seems dumb but okay.... still, why bother having the votes?
Sorry for not answering this sooner. The rules require that in the event a Speaker is not elected, the House proceed to another roll call vote, unless a motion to adjourn is made and carried. The only other alternative, as I understand it, would be a motion to change the manner of election, such as to use secret ballot rather than roll call voting, or to allow for election by plurality rather than by majority. But absent a motion to adjourn or a motion to change the manner of election, the Principal Clerk, who is presiding, is required to move forward with roll call votes to elect a Speaker.
What is the point of having the successive votes so soon after each other, when it is clear that nothing substantative has changed? Wouldn't it be better to wait a day or two before trying again?
As @Gwai says, the McCarthy Republicans lack the votes to adjourn, because the rebel Republicans have decided not to support that and the Democrats don’t see any benefit in saving the Republicans from themselves. So the House can’t adjourn, and it can’t do any other business until it has elected a Speaker.
Okay.... that seems dumb but okay.... still, why bother having the votes?
Sorry for not answering this sooner. The rules require that in the event a Speaker is not elected, the House proceed to another roll call vote, unless a motion to adjourn is made and carried. The only other alternative, as I understand it, would be a motion to change the manner of election, such as to use secret ballot rather than roll call voting, or to allow for election by plurality rather than by majority. But absent a motion to adjourn or a motion to change the manner of election, the Principal Clerk, who is presiding, is required to move forward with roll call votes to elect a Speaker.
That’s my understanding, at least.
Three times a day?
Or five times yesterday.
But yes, that’s my understanding—if a roll call vote doesn’t result in a winner, and if there’s not a motion to adjourn or a motion to change the rules of election in some way, the Principal Clerk must proceed to another toll call vote. And that goes on until a motion to adjourn passes.
A bizarre vox pop from a Republican voter presented by the BBC... AFAICS saying that it is very healthy for this to happen, but that McCarthy should never have allowed it...
If he would not have allowed it, he would have a full rebellion on his hands. Besides, at this time, he has no authority over the house.
For the record, Nancy Pelosi won nine elections as Speaker of the House on the first ballot, the last of which was won with a majority similarly narrow to the one now held by House Republicans.
Comments
I don't see any appetite in the republicans to propose a compromise that would be acceptable to the democrats. And from the democrat point of view, they're probably firmly ensconced in the "never interrupt your opponent while he's making a mistake" viewpoint.
Today, Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana shifted her vote from McCarthy to present. Perhaps that's signalling something - but it's probably not signalling more than "come and talk to me". As @Crœsos has noted, it would take 11 republicans to vote "present" (or be absent, or otherwise not vote for a named person" to hand the gavel to Jeffries, and they're probably taking some care not to accidentally do that.
That would be grimly hilarious if it happened.
Somewhere between PM, speaker and Leader of the House in terms of function, I would say.
Despite being behind the vice president in the order of presidential succession, the Speaker of the House is arguably the second most powerful elected official in the federal government.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
For as long as their guy isn’t President, at least.
Why cannot the Speaker perform their duties without commanding a majority of the House? The Speaker is not part of the executive and need not see any legislation passed. It is already possible - almost usual - for the House to be opposed to the executive branch, so why would it be any worse for the House to be opposed to the Speaker?
I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but the House of Representatives is part of the legislative branch. As such, its function is to pass legislation. Furthermore, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Art. I, § 7, cl. 1), which is kind of an important government function. Part of the Speaker's function is to set the agenda of the House, which bills get voted on, who serves on which committees, that sort of thing. A Speaker who can bring legislation to a vote but not have enough support to pass it is a problem, as is a Speaker who can block votes on majority-backed legislation. To put it bluntly, if a majority can't back a single Speaker there is no reason to believe that a majority will be available to pass other important House business.
Yes, I understand that Congress is the legislative branch. And I understand that raising revenue requires legislation. And I understand that a Speaker unfriendly to a proposed legislative programme could make it very difficult for that programme to be put into practice.
However what I do not understand is why this is worse than the very common situation where there is (say) a Republican Speaker of the House leading a Republican majority, which will therefore be hostile to the legislative programme desired by a Democratic president, or vice-versa.
Because there's a lot of legislation that needs to be passed even in a situation of divided government. For example, Art. I, § 8, cl. 12 of the U.S. Constitution states Congress has the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". That two year limit means that at least once per House term military spending has to be renewed. That's just one example. The general business of government requires a certain amount of legislation be passed, which requires a majority in both houses of Congress. That's why "can you assemble a majority to vote for you?" is a very reasonable test for the person responsible for getting legislation passed by the House.
Or to put it more bluntly, if Kevin McCarthy can't prevent a bunch of defectors from voting against him for Speaker, there's no reason to believe he'd be any better at preventing defectors from derailing necessary legislation.
When you say “the Speaker need not see any legislation passed,” that seems to assume a Westminster system-style Speaker. In the US system, the Speaker has a partisan role along with the role of presiding officer, and that partisan role includes seeing that the majority party passes the legislation that matters to it.
To allow for one member of the house to move for the vacation of the speaker's chair. Under previous rules, it would have taken 100 members to call for the vacation of the speaker's chair. McCarthy had proposed five members needed to move for the vacation of the chair, but the freedom caucus wanted more.
To allow for a member of the freedom caucus to be on the House Rules Committee. This is a powerful committee that determines which bill will be considered on the floor of the house.
To address the southern border issue.
The problem with these concessions is some moderate Republicans may think this is going too far, especially weakening the power of the Speaker. One just might see someone moving to vacate the speaker's chair at least every day the Congress is in session.
Having a Freedom Caucus member on the House Rules Committee could really slow down, if not clog, the legislative process.
There are still some other demands the Freedom Caucus would also like
Investigating the January Sixth Special Committee
The ability to defund parts of the government, like the FBI and the office of special counsel investigating Trump.
And the Weaponization of the Federal Government--whatever that means.
I know the Freedom Caucus would love to defund the special counsel investigating Trump because several of the Caucus members have also been named as persons of interest in the January 6 riots. They fear they will also be indicted for their actions.
In the US 2-party system described above, part of each party's normal function is to keep the other party out of power (by (a) winning elections and (b) by opposing, defeating and/or modifying proposed legislation as it comes up for vote. Increasingly, though, two other factors have come into play in US politics:
1. the growing number of voters who align with neither party, but who register as Independent and select candidates, election by election and issue by issue, from either/both Republican and Democratic wings based on stances for particular .legislative items
2. a growing number of voters apparently increasingly persuaded that the best governance is also the least governance, and the best way forward is to gum up the works so the system cannot function effectively as originally designed. This, I submit, is what motivates the 20 (or so) Republican nay-sayers to McCarthy are up to. We shall see . . .
So McCarthy isn’t negotiating with the Freedom Caucus at this point, nor is it the Freedom Caucus that is demanding more concessions. Whose negotiating with a small group of GOP members of the House who are also members of the Freedom Caucus.
Depends on the rules the House adopts.
Breaking, someone just voted for Trump.
Surely he's demonstrated how unsuitable (lazy, incompetent and lacking understanding for any detailed work) he is? Surely even most Republicns wouldn't give him their vote?
There was a little drama when Scott Perry (PA-10) came in at the end to cast a vote for Byron Donalds. He almost missed the vote.
You call that bribery. I call that compromise and dealmaking.
Whereas, if you say - vote on my legislation and in exchange I will fund a housing project in your constituency - that strikes me as unethical. That is not striking a deal in the national interest on the point at issue, it’s allowing yourself to be bought off.
Where would you rank "I'll support your legislation on increasing unemployment benefits, which I think would be bad for the economy, if you'll support my legislation on increased tax breaks for investment, which I think will benefit the economy"?
That doesn't have the obvious "bringing home federal dollars" bribery component that your example does, but does still have a quid-pro-quo.
CNN says that at least 4 republicans have to leave town tomorrow for some sort of family thing. That's not enough to change the overall numbers, though, but if enough people don't show up...
Okay.... that seems dumb but okay.... still, why bother having the votes?
So, yeah, okay, maybe enough Rs leave town or vote present to give Jeffries the Speaker spot...but I doubt he wants it. He would be a Speaker with NO majority and, as explained by other s earlier, that is a nightmare. The House will technically be able to function because it has a Speaker, but nothing can really be passed because the Speaker really doesn't have command of a majority for anything. It is slightly less bad than the no-speaker option, but it is a disaster politically because the Republicans (especially the far-right fruitcakes) will try to spin it as all being the Dems fault (because a Dem is Speaker) even though the situation was caused by the far-righters. And, in any event, the country is screwed.
But let's suppose the Dems realise this trap and avoid having their candidate be Speaker, for example by voting present or fleeing town. This allows Mc Carthy to be Speaker. Same probelm, though, He doesn't command a majority any more than Jeffries could. Nothing can really be passed. Everyhting grinds to a halt. This is a better outcome from the Dem point of view because they can blame the Republicans (after all, the Speaker is a Repub), but the end result is the same: the country is screwed.
Blaming each other doesn't change that. Pointing fingers at each other doesn't change that. Dancing on each others graves doesn't change that.
The thing is, Biden realizes this. It isn't a coincidence that he is strongly beating the bipartisan drum. He is doing everything he can do to head this off. Some sort of magical bipartisan majority that does not pay attention to party lines is the only possible winning scenario from this mess, but I don't see how we get there. It would require politicians whose income comes from slavishly following party lines to ignore that, ignore party lines and altruistically come together for the good of the country. But "politician" is pretty much the antonym to "altruistic."
What will eventually happen is that the Republicans will work it out. But the longer it takes, the worse they look. House members all have to be re-elected every two years. If people get an image of the 118th congress as useless because of Republicans that will be the Democrats' advantage. And the way the hard-liners are making a scene, I suspect they plan to make a habit of this behavior.
Way I see it the hard-liners are and will be a problem. When scenes like this let the rest of the country notice it that's good.
The way the US system works, if you don't pass a spending resolution authorizing new spending, basically everything just stops. They do often end up passing a continuing resolution (basically, "keep everything going at last year's rates 'cause we can't agree on this new thing") but often not until a bunch of government workers have been sent home for a while.
Brinkmanship has been a standard tactic in recent years.
You probably know this, but for Shipmates across the Pond and elsewhere, in the event of a government shutdown, the military and "essential" federal employees still have to show up for work (although their salaries are not paid), and Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements are still paid, but a whole lot of things (National Parks, for example) just shut down. It's pretty embarrassing for Americans who encounter tourists who have come to see the parks.
As for a House of Representatives without a Speaker - the Speaker, the other leaders of both parties in the House, and members of the House Intelligence Committee all normally receive regular intelligence briefings that they cannot receive if there is no Speaker (because none of the members of the House are sworn in until after the Speaker is chosen). So legislative oversight of the intelligence and national security apparatus cannot happen in the House until there is a Speaker. At least it occurs in the Senate.
The Speaker has almost complete control over what gets voted on or not in the House. They can't prevent a member from submitting a bill, but they can put it at the bottom of the pile so that it never gets taken up before the end of that term. The House, unlike the Senate, doesn't have a filibuster, so the time for debating anything up for a vote is limited according to the rules set for that term after the Speaker is chosen. The House has to approve the rules but the Speaker usually has a lot of say in what rules are put before the House to approve or disapprove. In recent decades, House rules have allowed a Speaker to generally limit debate, limit amendments, and rush legislation through if they want. The rebels want to get a Speaker who will set rules that weaken the Speaker's own power and allow individual members more of a say especially in the amendment process (in addition to their other demands). The problem is that the members who want these reforms want to use them to continue to freeze the operation of the House or topple the Speaker whenever they are dissatisfied.
There has been some commentary about how C-SPAN* is covering these Speaker votes, having a lot more camera work showing various House members conferring with each other on the sidelines as the votes are taken. This is different that C-SPAN's usual practice of focusing tightly on the well of the House (or Senate) and the difference is that the Speaker of the House usually exercises tight control on where the cameras can be pointed and what can be shown. Since there's no Speaker now C-SPAN is free to broadcast in whatever manner it likes and has decided to show dramatic clusters and conversations that we normally don't get to see. Some have complained about C-SPAN's broadcasts being "theatrical", but others have pointed out that fixed camera angles and dictated shots are theatre and what C-SPAN is doing right now is giving us a glimpse backstage.
*For those who don't know C-SPAN is a cable network that mostly broadcasts government events and panel discussions of government events.
So apparently there has been some kind of deal cut that moved some of the not!McCarthy votes, but it wasn't enough to get McCarthy the Speakership on this round of voting. Every former not!McCarthy Republican (plus Victoria Spartz, who kept voting 'present') got a round of applause from their fellow Republicans when the voted for McCarthy on this ballot. Jeffries lost a vote because David Trone of Maryland did not cast a ballot this round.
Democrats seem to be back at full strength, but by my math two Republicans did not vote.
That’s my understanding, at least.
If he would not have allowed it, he would have a full rebellion on his hands. Besides, at this time, he has no authority over the house.
Three times a day?
But yes, that’s my understanding—if a roll call vote doesn’t result in a winner, and if there’s not a motion to adjourn or a motion to change the rules of election in some way, the Principal Clerk must proceed to another toll call vote. And that goes on until a motion to adjourn passes.
For the record, Nancy Pelosi won nine elections as Speaker of the House on the first ballot, the last of which was won with a majority similarly narrow to the one now held by House Republicans.