House Republicans in Disarray

[Res Ipsa]

Another day, another vote. Sadly, I can't draw up a bracket, because the contenders appear to be picked by throwing darts.

Today it's Jim Jordan (R-Himself) v. Austin Scott (R-Geogia). Private vote is reportedly taking place now. As the last winner really didn't win anything, who knows what the result will mean.

Scuttlebutt is that Jordan tried to ram through an up or down vote on himself ASAP. Four planned votes on rule changes were tabled or scrapped to make way. One problem: folks have left for the weekend, and if too many Relief Society went home, we could be looking at Speaker Jeffries.

Jordan reportedly gave a "concession" speech after the last vote that attacked Scalise. That has apparently turned some Scalise backers into never-Jordaners.

But Jordan picked up the crucial backing of Darrel Issa (R-Crazytown), who stands to inherit the chair of Jordan's committee, returning the godfather of the politically motivated witch-hunt to his seat of former glory.

ETA: The internets were won today by Rep. Mike Collins, as quoted by Alana Satlin on Xitter:

"If we all get a chance to be voted on as speaker, are we going alphabetically or by class? Trying to plan Thanksgiving travel."

[Res Ipsa]

Jordan beats the new guy in private vote. Issa cheers.

[Gunnar]

Scuttlebutt is that Jordan tried to ram through an up or down vote on himself ASAP. Four planned votes on rule changes were tabled or scrapped to make way. One problem: folks have left for the weekend, and if too many Relief Society went home, we could be looking at Speaker Jeffries.

I have little doubt that Jeffries would be a better candidate for the job than any Republican candidate currently being seriously considered. Has it ever happened before that a member of the minority party in the house held that position? Are there any independents currently in the House, specifically any who might have some bipartisan or multipartisan support?

[Res Ipsa]

Scuttlebutt is that Jordan tried to ram through an up or down vote on himself ASAP. Four planned votes on rule changes were tabled or scrapped to make way. One problem: folks have left for the weekend, and if too many Relief Society went home, we could be looking at Speaker Jeffries.

I have little doubt that Jeffries would be a better candidate for the job than any Republican candidate currently being seriously considered. Has it ever happened before that a member of the minority party in the house held that position? Are there any independents currently in the House, specifically any who might have some bipartisan or multipartisan support?

Justin Amash might have been able to pull that off, but he was primaried in 2020 for criticizing Trump. There are a couple of independents, but I don’t know anything about them.

Frankly, the best solution may be someone from outside the Congress. A retired Congress critter with the skills to get stuff done. Not sure who that could be.

Guess that we all have to wait until Monday to see if anything happened.

[Gunnar]

Frankly, the best solution may be someone from outside the Congress. A retired Congress critter with the skills to get stuff done. Not sure who that could be.

Given the currently available complement of Congress critters, you might well be right! Heaven forbid that that they chose Trump, though! I shudder in horror at the very thought of that prospect!

[Physics Guy]

Why do politicians need funds?

The main reason I know is to buy TV ads. But how important is that? How much of the electorate even sees TV ads? How many people are moved by ads to change their votes, or to vote at all?

Are there other reasons why American politicians need so much money? Aren't there opportunities today to get people to vote for you without spending so much?

[Res Ipsa]

Why do politicians need funds?

The main reason I know is to buy TV ads. But how important is that? How much of the electorate even sees TV ads? How many people are moved by ads to change their votes, or to vote at all?

Are there other reasons why American politicians need so much money? Aren't there opportunities today to get people to vote for you without spending so much?

Field offices. Organization of on the ground campaigns in 50 states. Travel. Scarily targeted analysis of voters. Salaries. Targeted social media campaigns. Security. Locations for speeches. Campaigns in the US are pretty massive operations. And unlike many parliamentary systems, the length of the campaign Season is ridiculous. And, that last minute negative ad Blitz doesn’t come cheap.

[Physics Guy]

Huh. The unpredictable elections of the Parliamentary system may turn out to be a big advantage. There's a maximum time between elections, around five years in most countries, but until that point is reached they can be whenever the ruling party either decides to call an election or loses a confidence vote. You might think that this would just put everyone in permanent campaign mode, but I think in practice it doesn't. Nobody wants to shoot their budget too early and let all their advertising be forgotten by the time the election comes.

This might be another example of how the American constitutional fear of power concentration, which must be prevented by constitutional division of power, has been misplaced. Keeping executive and legislature separate, and having two equally powerful legislatures, makes for permanent political warfare. The parliamentary system, with only one significant legislative chamber whose majority also forms the executive, is kind of like giving all power to the king, instead of having many barons all fighting each other.

Every few years, you get to choose a new king. I think that turns out to be enough to make government serve the people.

[Res Ipsa]

Huh. The unpredictable elections of the Parliamentary system may turn out to be a big advantage. There's a maximum time between elections, around five years in most countries, but until that point is reached they can be whenever the ruling party either decides to call an election or loses a confidence vote. You might think that this would just put everyone in permanent campaign mode, but I think in practice it doesn't. Nobody wants to shoot their budget too early and let all their advertising be forgotten by the time the election comes.

This might be another example of how the American constitutional fear of power concentration, which must be prevented by constitutional division of power, has been misplaced. Keeping executive and legislature separate, and having two equally powerful legislatures, makes for permanent political warfare. The parliamentary system, with only one significant legislative chamber whose majority also forms the executive, is kind of like giving all power to the king, instead of having many barons all fighting each other.

Every few years, you get to choose a new king. I think that turns out to be enough to make government serve the people.

I think it has some advantages and some disadvantages. A big one is the shorter election cycle. Another is that the members of parliament need only campaign in their ridings. There is no need for the endless, tortuous process of national campaigns for party nomination and then election in 50 different states. If the party in power is doing its job, it's rewarded with the opportunity to call a snap election. If the government breaks down and becomes dysfunctional, there's a new election.

Making it practical for small parties to be represented is kind of a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it often forces the larger parties to negotiate and form coalition governments. On the other, well, Israel's recent history.

Right now, we don't have a functioning Congress because of conflicts within the majority party in the House. It's as if the ruling party or coalition was incapable of electing a Prime Minister. Our system has no fix for that except wait for the next election. It's possible that the U.S. will have no functioning government until January 2025. We have no equivalent of a no confidence vote.

The divided power in the U.S. government is based on many assumptions by the framers that no longer hold. When some people elect anti-government candidates to run the government, you get broken government. When there are only two effective parties and the representation is closely divided, it's the small minority that wants to break the government that calls the shots.

[Res Ipsa]

So now we know how the private votes went last night.

The first vote was Jordan vs. A guy who doesn't want to be speaker and threw his hat in the ring at the last minute.

Jordan: 124
Some Guy: 81

Someone needs 217 votes to become Speaker

The second vote was Jordan v. no one -- how would you vote on the floor if Jordan is the only R nominee?

Jordan: 152
Not Jordan: 55

Jordan is one of the extremists on the right. Hell freezes over before a demoncrat -- let alone 50 democrats -- votes for Jordan.

In a sane world, a group of centrists from both parties cut some kind of deal to elect a moderate R as speaker. But no R can afford to do that because making deals with democrats is tantamount to treason in MAGA land. Do it and you get primaried. See Liz Cheney. That's why the Relief Society will not bring a vote to the floor until they find the magical unicorn Republican who can be elected with only R votes.

For D's to even suggest a compromise R candidate would be the kiss of death for that candidate. The extremist wing of the R party is holding the entire party hostage. It's a broken political party that is unable to govern.