Technically McCarthy only needs to get a majority of the members that show up. Maybe he could make a deal with a dozen Dems to miss their flights?
Close date updated to 2023-01-06 11:59 pm
Close date updated to 2023-01-13 11:59 pm
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ134 | |
| 2 | Ṁ88 | |
| 3 | Ṁ53 | |
| 4 | Ṁ14 | |
| 5 | Ṁ13 |
Does this include if some members vote "present" (i.e. abstain), thus lowering the threshold, but those members are physically there?
Does this require the existence of some kind of media reporting that there is such a deal?
Are the sole resolution criteria that (a) some Democrats fail to show up and (b) McCarthy wins the race with less than 218 support votes? Or are other resolution criteria being used?
@octothorpe Voting present is the exact opposite of not showing up. It is a majority of members present that decides speaker, so voting present doesn't nothing. The democrats could technically just not show up and McCarthy would win easily but the more likely occurance is a deal between democrats and a few republicans to choose a moderate republican. It would only take 6 republican and all democrats to do this.
@BTE Voting "present" does decrease the threshold. See:
1/ "The long-standing practice of the House is that electing a Speaker requires a numerical majority of the votes cast by Members “for a person by name.” This does not mean that an individual must necessarily receive a majority (currently 218) of the full membership of the House. This is because some Members may choose not to vote and others may answer “present.”" https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44243.pdf
2/ "The magic number is 218 – kind of. A candidate requires votes from a majority of lawmakers who are voting to be elected speaker. That means if all 435 members are present and voting, the number of votes needed is 218. But lawmakers can decide to skip the vote, or vote "present," which reduces the vote threshold needed to win the speakership." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/02/house-speaker-vote-explained/10912271002/
Yeah, what I read agrees with that - "present" votes equivalent to non-votes, and do lower the number of votes required.
Also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/02/house-speaker-vote-explained/10912271002/ says
But lawmakers can decide to skip the vote, or vote "present," which reduces the vote threshold needed to win the speakership. Speakers Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and John Boehner, R-Ohio, both won the speakership without reaching 218 votes.
So it seems like this has happened before, although in those cases the election wasn't contested.
@jack Yes in those cases both pelosi and boehner allowed members of their own party to not vote for them but just enough not to impact the outcome.
@JonathanRay the speaker has only been challenged on the floor once since the civil war.
@octothorpe If the majority that prevails is based on less than the full house membership. For each member that doesn’t show the total number of votes needed goes down. It is possible this will happen on the first vote, but that would be unusual.
@BTE Would this market have resolved YES for Pelosi's election in 2021, in which she won 216 votes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election
@octothorpe No because those were members of her party that didn't vote symbolically. This requires coordination across party lines. I don't think the Dems would do that for McCarthy, but I could see a deal for someone else.
@jack Without democrats it doesn't work. No amount of republicans not showing will help him.
A Republican abstaining/voting present instead of voting for another candidate does help him. If 216 vote for McCarthy and 6 Republicans vote for a different candidate, he does not win. If those same 6 Republicans vote present, then he does win with 216. See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/02/house-speaker-vote-explained/10912271002/