Rep. Andy Biggs challenges Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House vote on January 3rd

[wing2000]

At one point, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tried to hand Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) her cellphone: Former President Trump was calling. But Rosendale waved her off.

...MTG the only one taking Donald's phone calls eh?

 

[Arcangl86]

Now we get to repeat this whole fiasco with the rules packet and committee assignments next week.

 

[mark46]

Ooh, Kev looks happy, what did he promise Gaetz, a kidney?

Apparently, Gaetz was finally promised the committed assignment he wanted.

As Gaetz said, he couldn't think of any more to ask for. He finally allowed McCarthy to become speaker.

 

[Desk trauma]

Apparently, Gaetz was finally promised the committed assignment he wanted.

As Gaetz said, he couldn't think of any more to ask for. He finally allowed McCarthy to become speaker.

I'm sure he will think of something later, then on to the no confidence votes.

 

[mark46]

The founders presumed the American people would elect men and women of good faith.....

So, the people were allowed to see how democracy works, how the sausage is made.

The Speaker needed to have the support of a MAJORITY of those voting for a candidate. Why should the method be any different?

We had/have a divided House.

212 supported Jeffries, 200 supported McCarthy (the leader unanimously elected minority leader by Republicans two years ago), the rest are Republicans supporting other candidates or wanting to get compromises. Should the Democrat be given the leadership because he got the most votes for so many ballots? Should the speakership have been given to McCarthy when he had the support of only 200, with Jeffries having the support of 212?
===============================================
Democracy is messy. I like the system used.

The Democrats could have tried to get the support of 5 Republicans, those who won in heavily Biden districts (and who will likely have little chance for re-election). They probably did try. But they failed. The Democrats could have won the majority in five additional elections in CA and in NY.
They failed.

Other candidates could have tried to get the majority. That didn't happen.

Mccarthy had at least 80 loyalists who would prevent the small minority from having one of their own as speaker.

So, it was up to McCarthy to move from 200 to enough votes to be elected. This is our system. Had he failed to secure the votes of Republicans, many of the compromises would have been withdrawn and McCarthy would have gotten a compromise with Democrats. Clearly, he would rather be given the control by Republicans, and have Republicans retain control of committees and what legislation reaches the House floor.

Alternatively, if the deadlock continued, 5 Republicans could have decided to vote for Jeffries.
====================================

There was an alternative, the one used in the past when a party was split on choice of leader. The party could have gone into smoke-filled back rooms and made the decision, no matter how long it took. And when the decision was made, the party would elect their chose leader on the first ballot. The party would have made the similar concessions. The difference would have been that the public would have been kept out.

Perhaps the Progressives would have preferred to have open votes in the past. Perhaps they would have gotten concessions that the people could see. But, the Democrats were conservatives; they used the system that has been used for 100 years. And they fought. They negotiated. They gave in to the decision of the leadership.

 

[mark46]

It's why I've truly come to appreciate the European Parliamentary system. You have an election where Parliament (or Congress) is chosen, the majority (or a combination of) party sets up a government and chooses a Prime Minister. At that point, the majority party is responsible for the government -- they can't blame the minority for any failures or for bad policies. At the next election (or even before, if there is a vote of no confidence), if people decide to make a change, the other (or a different) party takes control and is responsible for the decisions made. It is a difference of government set up to do something and be responsible, as opposed to a government set up to do nothing and avoid responsibility.

I STRONGLY disagree.

Consider the dozens of laws passed in the past two years with support and votes from Republicans. I like the idea that both parties needed, for example, to support infrastructure.
=============
We could have had two alternatives, both terrible, IMO.

CHOICE ONE
Democrats would have pushed through all of the Democrat agenda, with the at least $6T of additional spending. The inflation rate would have gone up until Manchin and others finally voted a vote of no confidence. Then, new elections would have happened.

In fact, as soon as ONE Democratic senator was enraged enough, Biden's administration would have ended. The Republicans would simply have opposed everything and waited for their turn.

CHOICE TWO
The Democratic bills would have been passed, with Manchin stopping what he wished to stop. No bipartisan negotiations would have taken place.
=============
I prefer the US system. It is messy, cumbersome, as the best there is.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
We can a democracy, stability, and the US system of checks and balances.

Or, the government could subject to new elections whenever the majority mis-stepped for a month or two, enough to enrage the extremists im their party, as pushed by popular outrage.

Make no mistake, Biden would have been out of office in midsummer with hugely high inflation rates, high gas taxes, huge amounts of spending and a very low approval rating.

 

[mark46]

I'm sure he will think of something later, then on to the no confidence votes.

Perhaps.

In the meantime, the rebels will take their place on committees and begin the investigations. The rebels wanted their piece of the actions in attacking and bringing down the federal government.

In the end, no Republican presented legislation will pass the Senate (similar to House minorities for decades).

The OPEN question is how the "critical" votes will be handles. McCarthy will end up needing some Democratic votes to keep the government running and to increase the debt limit to pay our bills. He will go the Democrats when the government has been closed down for long enough and when the debt crisis is close enough at hand.

Then, of course, there will be a no-confidence vote. I see no reason for such a vote to get 218 votes. The Democrats won't vote to remove McCarthy because he insisted on the government being funded. Well, they won't do this unless 5 Republicans vow to support Jeffries for speaker.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There was an alternative, the one used in the past when a party was split on choice of leader. The party could have gone into smoke-filled back rooms and made the decision, no matter how long it took. And when the decision was made, the party would elect their chose leader on the first ballot. The party would have made the similar concessions. The difference would have been that the public would have been kept out.

To be clear, this is basically how legislative parties pick their leaders to this day (OK, without the smoking). What happened is that McCarthy *FAILED* to gain the requisite support in the private negotiations and the constitutional calendar *forced* the intra-party contest into the open and onto the floor of the House. (The Dems had a very, very similar mirror position 2 years ago with the last Congress [same size majority, same size vote for speaker, etc.])

 

[mark46]

Congrats to McCarthy.

He has the support of 200 House members. Jeffries has the support of 212.

McCarthy can pass no legislation. That is a given. He is minority leader; the Senate wouldn't approve anything the House send to them.

McCarthy, and his supporters, have little real power. But they have some, and much more than those than the 21 that he soundly defeated.

McCarthy will give up some committee assignments, but should retain control of committees. He will decide which bill bills go the House floor.

Sure, there can be a no-confidence and another vote. However, I believe that there are many who strongly support McCarthy and will not allow a coup. After all, it is a long way from 21 to 218. McCarthy may end up getting Democratic help to retain his chair.
=========================
In the end, McCarthy might have folded after a few votes and given the gavel to someone on the far right. McCarthy does indeed believe in the institution and in the federal government. That is a huge plus for mainline conservatives and for almost all Democrats.

McCarthy didn't stand up to Trump. Perhaps, he thought that the Republicans had an opportunity for a major Republican victory in the 2022 election. And, personally, I think that he was correct. And, politically, his actions may have been reasonable. After all, just a bit less interference by Trump would have resulted in a Republican Senate and several more votes in the House.

McCarthy might have judged that splitting right after the insurrection would have led to an easy Democratic victory in 2022. I suspect that he was correct.
============
BOTTOM LINE
So, IMO, McCarthy is part of the solution for the Republican Party. The party may be able to have some victories in 2024, or not. However, the FUTURE is fully open in 2026 and 2028. Both parties will need to fight for control in the next 6 years. This was a victory for the 200, not a victory for 21. The 21 did win rules and the right to investigate. However, they will learn that the right to whine is not real power, and is unlikely to help them in the 2024 House and Senate elections.

 

[mark46]

To be clear, this is basically how legislative parties pick their leaders to this day (OK, without the smoking). What happened is that McCarthy *FAILED* to gain the requisite support in the private negotiations and the constitutional calendar *forced* the intra-party contest into the open and onto the floor of the House. (The Dems had a very, very similar mirror position 2 years ago with the last Congress [same size majority, same size vote for speaker, etc.])

Your point is well taken. It says something about McCarthy, Pelosi and the extremists wings of both parties.

I would note that McCarthy was unanimously elected minority speaker 2 years ago.
==================
Pelosi is one of the most effective House speakers in my memory (up there with Tip O'neil). She is much more able than McCarthy can ever hope to be. What she has accomplished in the past two years is truly extraordinary.

The Republican far-right had the power to get certain changes. They got the changes. I don't see this as a defeat. Yes, he is subject to a no confidence vote, just like others for a century.

 

[SimplyMe]

I STRONGLY disagree.

Consider the dozens of laws passed in the past two years with support and votes from Republicans. I like the idea that both parties needed, for example, to support infrastructure.
=============
We could have had two alternatives, both terrible, IMO.

CHOICE ONE
Democrats would have pushed through all of the Democrat agenda, with the at least $6T of additional spending. The inflation rate would have gone up until Manchin and others finally voted a vote of no confidence. Then, new elections would have happened.

In fact, as soon as ONE Democratic senator was enraged enough, Biden's administration would have ended. The Republicans would simply have opposed everything and waited for their turn.

CHOICE TWO
The Democratic bills would have been passed, with Manchin stopping what he wished to stop. No bipartisan negotiations would have taken place.
=============
I prefer the US system. It is messy, cumbersome, as the best there is.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
We can a democracy, stability, and the US system of checks and balances.

Or, the government could subject to new elections whenever the majority mis-stepped for a month or two, enough to enrage the extremists im their party, as pushed by popular outrage.

Make no mistake, Biden would have been out of office in midsummer with hugely high inflation rates, high gas taxes, huge amounts of spending and a very low approval rating.

What you are missing is that, if we had a European style Parliament, we likely don't only have two parties. Instead, the "far right" (or whatever you want to call Trump Republicans) would likely have their own party, the more "mainstream" Republicans are likely another party, then you have more traditional Democrats as a party, and the "far left" as a party. Rather than being the Republicans vs. the Democrats, you'd end up with the two moderate parties (the mainstream Republicans and moderate Democrats) forming a coalition to rule.

Beyond that, as you point out, if either party gets "too aggressive" then it likely ends up with a "no confidence" vote; making the ruling party be a bit more deliberate before the make massive changes (which the next party can typically come in and "undo." Sure, they couldn't completely cancel the $6T spending bill but, since most of that $6T won't have been spent, they can cancel most unspent portions. Though it is interesting how deficits only appear to be talked about during Democratic administrations. Pres. Trump basically doubled the deficit he "inherited" from Obama, in a good economy, but Republicans never cared until Biden took over.

 

[mark46]

What you are missing is that, if we had a European style Parliament, we likely don't only have two parties. Instead, the "far right" (or whatever you want to call Trump Republicans) would likely have their own party, the more "mainstream" Republicans are likely another party, then you have more traditional Democrats as a party, and the "far left" as a party. Rather than being the Republicans vs. the Democrats, you'd end up with the two moderate parties (the mainstream Republicans and moderate Democrats) forming a coalition to rule.

Beyond that, as you point out, if either party gets "too aggressive" then it likely ends up with a "no confidence" vote; making the ruling party be a bit more deliberate before the make massive changes (which the next party can typically come in and "undo." Sure, they couldn't completely cancel the $6T spending bill but, since most of that $6T won't have been spent, they can cancel most unspent portions. Though it is interesting how deficits only appear to be talked about during Democratic administrations. Pres. Trump basically doubled the deficit he "inherited" from Obama, in a good economy, but Republicans never cared until Biden took over.

I am not missing the idea European chaos with many parties and negotiating between parties whenever there are issues. We are most happy with our system when we view the politics of Italy and Israel (for example).

I strongly support the US system.

HOWEVER, I do favor better enforcement of voting rules.

Also, I am coming around to accepting counting 2nd choices if no one reaches a majority.

 

[Desk trauma]

We are most happy with our system when we view the politics of Italy and Israel (for example).

We? What group are you representing?

 

[mark46]

We? What group are you representing?

You are correct. I am not an elected official. I speak for myself.

However, IMO, the vast majority of US voters support the US system instead of the parliamentary systems of Europe.

And yes, most think that our system can be improved.
==============
We can both check polls of Dems, Republicans and Independents.

Do you disagree?

 

[mark46]

Now we get to repeat this whole fiasco with the rules packet and committee assignments next week.

Yes.

As of now, very few know all the compromises. We'll see whether they all have 218 votes.

It will be interesting to see whether there is an amendment process.

 

[Desk trauma]

You are correct. I am not an elected official. I speak for myself.

However, IMO, the vast majority of US voters support the US system instead of the parliamentary systems of Europe.

And yes, most think that our system can be improved.
==============
We can both check polls of Dems, Republicans and Independents.

Do you disagree?

I don't think that a move to a more parliamentary system has been thought about by most people.

 

[mark46]

I don't think that a move to a more parliamentary system has been thought about by most people.

I agree.

If anyone suggests, we will have 5 years or more of debate before anything changes. After the needed COnstitutional Convention, there would be vote on amendments ot the Constitution.
=========
It truly doesn't matter if a majority of those on message boards prefer European systems. It just won't happen, or even be seriously considered.
================
PLURALITY OR SECOND CHOICE VOTING
I do find this choice interesting. Should we allow a minority of voters (a plurality) elect say a congressman, with the rest having no input, or should election require a majority.

IMO, the best choice for GA isn't to allow the candidate with a plurality to win a Senate seat. Being elected by 45% or even less isn't my idea of democracy. A runoff is a GOOD idea. I would keep that system. The majority should elect.

I'm OK with the choice of a process of including 2nd choices when no one receives a majority.
============
I AM CURIOUS
What is the advantage of the PLURALITY system, where the minority often rules?

 

[Fantine]

A puppet has been installed to do the bidding of 20 radical extremists in the House.

If it doesn't work, hopefully one moderate (or slightly less extremist) Republican will challenge McCarthy and find a replacement who would be moderate enough to garner a half dozen Democratic votes.

It's believed that if a potential replacement would make a few concessions to Democrats (equal representation on some committees...) that would be far less odious than the current situation.

 

[RoBo1988]

It's believed that if a potential replacement would make a few concessions to Democrats (equal representation on some committees...) that would be far less odious than the current situation.

Yeah, just like Nancy Pelosi did all those years she had the majority... sure

 

[DaisyDay]

I agree.

If anyone suggests, we will have 5 years or more of debate before anything changes. After the needed COnstitutional Convention, there would be vote on amendments ot the Constitution.
=========
It truly doesn't matter if a majority of those on message boards prefer European systems. It just won't happen, or even be seriously considered.
================
PLURALITY OR SECOND CHOICE VOTING
I do find this choice interesting. Should we allow a minority of voters (a plurality) elect say a congressman, with the rest having no input, or should election require a majority.

IMO, the best choice for GA isn't to allow the candidate with a plurality to win a Senate seat. Being elected by 45% or even less isn't my idea of democracy. A runoff is a GOOD idea. I would keep that system. The majority should elect.

I'm OK with the choice of a process of including 2nd choices when no one receives a majority.
============
I AM CURIOUS
What is the advantage of the PLURALITY system, where the minority often rules?

The Constitution doesn’t require a two party system.