The chamber has been without a leader for weeks because of GOP infighting.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    At the rate it’s going over there, the UN might have to send in peacekeepers fairly soon. And no, I didn’t put this in the wrong topic.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      I believe 7 of the 9 did. There are 2 Republicans running who didn’t try to overturn the 2020 election. Of course, the Freedom Caucus will oppose those candidates, keeping them from getting enough votes.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah I saw that.

        One of four black House Republicans.

        One of four, in a body of 221 house GOP reps.

        That’s 1.8%. An amazing statistic even compared to house GOP women at 16%.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t know anything about you, but I’m certain you’re at least as qualified as these clowns.

  • TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    The rule should be if they don’t get a person voted in then the democrats get to pick a republican to serve. The person chosen must serve.

      • haventbeenlistening@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        This could be better than the current situation but I could imagine a lot of side effects to that system. Maybe if there was a lower threshold that had to be met so we couldn’t have situations where someone with 20 votes wins.

    • Hominine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I can get behind this. A lot of effort invested into tweaking the rules of sortsball lately to keep things fresh when these are the changes we need.

  • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    There are no good options here. 7 of the 9 voted to not certify the 2020 election results.

    Tom Emmer, the MN rep who is emerging as a front-runner of the two that did vote to certify, is just as bad but more politically savvy, having repeatedly cast doubt in the election results and refused to acknowledge Biden even won after the election. He’s a partisan willing to do and say anything for right-wing causes, but unlike the pure chaos members, can make calculated long-term decisions about political effects.

    The other person who voted to certify is Austin Scott, who the Internet seems to know nothing about. Maybe he’s the best option here? The “not enough information to confirm verifiably terrible” option?

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    With this many running and no primary in the “republican secret conference ballot”, someone that has the support of 26 representatives (out of 438) could win the gavel.

    • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I assume you think it’s FPtP rules but in this case an absolute majority (more than half) is needed, unless I’m missing something new? So more people running likely means less chance of a speaker being picked (and thus even more voting attempts).

      EDIT: Or do you mean that the secret ballot is plurality and that every republican will honor that result (even if they dislike who won) thus giving that pick the majority on the floor vote?

      Is the secret ballot how McCarthy won after 15 rounds of voting? Or are they going to work out a different deal now?

      • randon31415@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes, the Republicans were passing around a " I will vote for whomever gets the most votes on the secret first ballot" pledge the other day. I was like: “So no primary, ranked choice, or multiple rounds of voting until a majority? Just the highest vote getter on the first round? What is the worst case on that?”

          • randon31415@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’ve learnt from Trump that worst case in politics isn’t the “worst thing that could reasonably happen.”