'Six Strikes & You Are Out ?'

[iNow]

Anyone else notice Toucana always posts OPs like this on political topics, doesn’t frame the discussion, then also never really engages?

Anyway… 

Quote

Six Strikes & You Are Out ?

Now it’s 11. The House has adjourned and McCarthy has lost 11 votes for Speaker. 
 

 

[StringJunky]

Three more will make him a historic record breaker.

[Endy0816]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Three more will make him a historic record breaker.

121 more tries and we can beat the 34th Congress!

[CharonY]

I have heard an interview from the stupid caucus arguing that this is a good thing for tax payers as the government is now not spending money. Beside the obvious stupidity of the reasoning it is also a great way to argue that one's job is worthless (or even detrimental).

[StringJunky]

53 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

121 more tries and we can beat the 34th Congress!

I thought 13 tries was the record in the 1800s.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have heard an interview from the stupid caucus arguing that this is a good thing for tax payers as the government is now not spending money. Beside the obvious stupidity of the reasoning it is also a great way to argue that one's job is worthless (or even detrimental).

One thing I've learnt is that MTG has one more brain cell than Matt Gaetz.

Edited January 6, 2023 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I thought 13 tries was the record in the 1800s.

One thing I've learnt is that MTG has one more brain cell than Matt Gaetz.

That might be tried by a single person. Not sure. This a list of all occasions requiring multiple ballots.

https://history.house.gov/People/Office/Speakers-Multiple-Ballots/

[swansont]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyone else notice Toucana always posts OPs like this on political topics, doesn’t frame the discussion, then also never really engages?

!

Moderator Note

No. I don’t think the evidence supports this allegation, but the more important issue is that this is off-topic and irrelevant. If one thinks a proposition is poorly framed, one may ask for clarification. This is not uncommon.

 

 

[StringJunky]

From the horses mouth on the future in the House: "Gaetz boasted Thursday night that even if McCarthy managed to win, “he will have to live the entirety of his speakership in a straitjacket constructed by these rules that we’re working on now.” McCarthy has just ordered himself a shit sandwich with sides. What the caucus have given McCarthy is akin to giving a  thirsty dying man saltwater.

Edited January 8, 2023 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

From the horses mouth on the future in the House: "Gaetz boasted Thursday night that even if McCarthy managed to win, “he will have to live the entirety of his speakership in a straitjacket constructed by these rules that we’re working on now.” McCarthy has just ordered himself a shit sandwich with sides. What the caucus have given McCarthy is akin to giving a  thirsty dying man saltwater.

That's for sure lol.

Likely to repeat too within the next few years.

[mistermack]

So, it looks like, the speaker is third in line to the presidency. One single vote cause a no-confidence vote. So if he ever had to take over the presidency, just one vote could start the removal process.

Let's hope Biden stays healthy, and Harris stays sane.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

So, it looks like, the speaker is third in line to the presidency. One single vote cause a no-confidence vote. So if he ever had to take over the presidency, just one vote could start the removal process.

Let's hope Biden stays healthy, and Harris stays sane.

I don’t think this is an issue. I doubt ascending to the presidency is why he wanted the job, but if he was set to take over the presidency, he would no longer be the speaker, and if there was a need for him to take over, it would happen immediately - before the house could oust him as speaker.

 

[mistermack]

It's a very strange line of succession rule anyway. It seems to go against democracy that a party that lost the presidential election can end up having their man in the White House. It would be more democratic to have a vice-vice president in line, rather than a speaker. There is a possible motive for assassination in the present system, in that assassination could actually change the party in power,

Edit: That would also provide a motive to impeach. The house might be swayed by the fact that their speaker is one step closer to becoming president if the incumbent gets impeached. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

It's a very strange line of succession rule anyway. It seems to go against democracy

Not all democracies are the same. The US is a representative democracy, specifically a constitutional republic, and that constitution has had this succession rule and sequence in place without serious issue since the year 1788.

235 years of consistent success is a good bit of evidence in favor of effectiveness, IMO. 

[TheVat]

This is all something of a repeat (or it rhymes, anyway) of the situation with John Boehner's speakership.  

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

235 years of consistent success is a good bit of evidence in favor of effectiveness, IMO.

I agree of course. But that's not the whole story. Up till now, people have acted with a certain amount of honour. Al Gore (for all his faults) didn't claim the 2,000 election had been stolen from him. (by 543 votes) It's a new era now, and people are prepared to do stuff that people in the past would not have contemplated. Like pressuring Raffenspurger to "find me" 11,780 votes. It makes you wonder about George W's win in Florida by 543 votes. Maybe that  sort of stuff used to go on in the background. 

The fact that Trump isn't in jail says a lot about modern standards. 

[iNow]

The risk is surely higher right now than any of us would like. Roughly 2% of all the members managed to completely stop for an entire week all business of every member of the entire congress, and it surely won’t be the last time they choose to do so. 

Choosing a Speaker is the easiest vote any one of them will ever take, and they did little more than fumble and turnover the ball with each chance. 

[TheVat]

57 minutes ago, mistermack said:

 But that's not the whole story. Up till now, people have acted with a certain amount of honour. Al Gore (for all his faults) didn't claim the 2,000 election had been stolen from him. (by 543 votes) It's a new era now, and people are prepared to do stuff that people in the past would not have contemplated.

Andrew Jackson and his supporters contested the legitimacy of his 1824 loss, for many years after, charging various corrupt dealings.  His base endlessly attacked the Adams administration as illegitimate and the election a farce.  And you may enjoy a look at the Hayes v Tilden disputed election of 1876, and the years of allegations of election fraud.  Anyway, sorry to say that "people have acted with a certain amount of honour" (up till now) is pretty far from the truth.

Edited January 8, 2023 by TheVat
Pyto

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's a very strange line of succession rule anyway. It seems to go against democracy that a party that lost the presidential election can end up having their man in the White House. It would be more democratic to have a vice-vice president in line, rather than a speaker. There is a possible motive for assassination in the present system, in that assassination could actually change the party in power,

Edit: That would also provide a motive to impeach. The house might be swayed by the fact that their speaker is one step closer to becoming president if the incumbent gets impeached. 

In the past, the vice president used to be the person who received the second highest number of votes in the general election. Meaning the president and vice president were typically not in the same party.

[iNow]

Jefferson had to go and screw that up by making congress pass the 12th amendment. How dare he!

[mistermack]

I think we're spoilt here in the UK, having a fairly simple system that works. The ruling party hires and fires the PM. Genius !!

Having said that, you need a majority to make it work well. Coalitions are a different story.

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Having said that, you need a majority to make it work well. Coalitions are a different story.

Yes! Example: Israel.

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I think we're spoilt here in the UK, having a fairly simple system that works. The ruling party hires and fires the PM. Genius !!

Having said that, you need a majority to make it work well. Coalitions are a different story.

Yes, I kind of like your system. One good thing here is that when the same party controls the House, Senate, and Presidency you usually see significant changes (for better or worse) rather than the gridlock you often get trying to satisfy a coalition.

[TheVat]

@mistermack

I replied to an assertion you made earlier, as to its factual basis.  If I've posted in error, or you have other issues with my historical cites, please let me know.  

Not much point in me putting up researched answers if they are ignored.  I'm not trying to "win" something here, just correcting a false impression that outsiders may have of America.

[Phi for All]

We have so many Republican Representatives now who openly oppose our own system of government, yet they take the salary as they work to ensure the system doesn't work. Traitors, white supremacists, and Russian money launderers are winning elections, so we have to pay them to work against us. And they consider themselves the REAL Americans!

As always, as they reduce the effectiveness of our government by insisting it needs to shrink, privately owned alternatives are the only solution offered. We don't have purely publicly owned resources in the US anymore. Everything is about making insultingly enormous profits and legislation that makes high-level corruption legal.

Forgive me if I don't stand, Mr Speaker. I've read the articles from journalists I trust who think you're one of the dumbest people in Congress, and it seems like you had to make some dumb deals to get where you are. 

[mistermack]

34 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Not much point in me putting up researched answers if they are ignored.

I thought 150 and 200 year old examples were a bit out of date to be relevant to the conversation.  Back in those days the UK still had 'Rotten Boroughs' and I wouldn't be quoting them on here.