Questions. George Santos alone can trigger a bad Speaker vote thingy...That's awesome

[prodigitalson]

McCarthy really did give away his testicles and probably a kidney to get that job didn't he?

That never dawned on me until now. Everyone keeps saying that he won't help get rid of the dude because he only has a five seat majority. He only has a one seat margin of error on that. How often could Santos propose a motion to vacate? Every day? Once per session? Can he do it as George Devolder as well, doubling McCarthy's inconvenience?

[elleng]

1. YES he DID.

[mitch96]

3. "George Santos alone can trigger a bad Speaker vote thingy." OK that explains to me why

McCarthy is not trashing this guy. He can eject the new speaker at any time. So he plays nice.
m

[prodigitalson]

4. It's actually way better than that

Perhaps the most significant concession McCarthy made in the rules package involves the motion to vacate the chair, a procedural tool used to remove the speaker.

The House rules under former Speaker Nancy Pelosi required a majority vote by a party caucus or conference in order for a motion to vacate to be brought up for a vote, and McCarthy initially lowered the threshold to force a vote down to five members.

But in his effort to appease his conservative detractors, McCarthy eventually agreed to restore the ability of a single member from either party to force a vote to oust the speaker.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-passes-rules-package-that-was-at-heart-of-mccarthys-speaker-battle/ar-AA168Kfq

you just can't make this shit up

[MichMan]

13. It was restored to what it had always been for hundreds of years

I don't see why people think was some huge concession on McCarthy's part. All that happened is that the rule was changed back to what it always had been.

No one has introduced a motion to vacate since 1910

[MichMan]

16. What does any of that have to do with a process to vacate the office of the speaker with one vote ?

[onenote]

18. Pelosi pushed to make it harder to challenge the Speaker in 2019

So January 6 had nothing to do with it. Maybe she pushed for the change to make it harder for the Republican minority to call for disruptive votes on her Speakership. It also made it harder for a rogue Democrat to do the same thing (remember—15 Democrats voted against her being elected Speaker in 2019).

[onenote]

5. How can Santos alone 'eject' McCarthy

The vote by which McCarthy was elected was 216 for McCarthy, 212 for Jeffries, 6 not voting. That means McCarthy needed a majority of the 228 votes cast, or 215 votes. If Santos moves to vacate the chair and then votes for anyone other than McCarthy, or votes present, McCarthy still wins.

In short, if Santos alone moves for a new speaker vote, there is no reason to think that the anyone else in the Republican caucus would change their votes and McCarthy would win again.

I doubt McCarthy is worried that Santos could unilaterally derail his speakership. He's probably much more concerned about the six "present" votes that might blow up his speakership.

But what he has going for him is what he had going for him through 14 rounds of votes -- the Republican caucus has no one else to rally around.

[prodigitalson]

6. he can't

but he or any single House member can basically call a vote of no confidence and force the whole House to elect a speaker again. My question is how often can one do that? Sounds like fun.

[onenote]

7. So should the Democrats introduce a resolution declaring the speaker's office vacant every day?

[prodigitalson]

8. no, they probably shouldn't but can they?

because if they can, so can George Santos. Which helps bring into focus how utterly McCarthy capitulated and maybe why he won't do anything to Santos.

[MichMan]

12. Sure they could, but the same rule has existed for 100's of years & hasn't been used since 1910.

I don't know why everyone is acting like this is something new and some huge capitulation by McCarthy; the one member call for a vote to vacate has been in place for the vast majority of the time since the House was created. It was only changed in 2019 when Speaker Pelosi was elected. It's just reverting back to what it has always traditionally been.

No one has called for a vote to vacate since 1910, and that one failed.

[onenote]

14. Its pure window dressing -- meaningless.

Hardly a capitulation since it was the rule from the 19th Century until 2019 nd was used only twice -- once in 1910 when the Speaker himself offered a resolution to vacate in order to force members to go on record as to whether they wanted him to continue as Speaker (they did) and once in 2015 when Mark Meadows offered a resolution to oust Boehner from the Speaker's chair -- a resolution that, despite being "privileged" never actually came to vote. The fact is that if only one member cares enough to move to declare the Speaker's chair vacant, that effort is destined to lose. And if there are enough members willing to actually seek to remove the Speaker, then you'll have more than one member willing to offer such a resolution.

[elocs]

10. A motion to vacate can come from a single Republican or Democrat.

[link:https://news.yahoo.com/speaker-house-ousted-motion-vacate-212005847.html|

"Under the new House rules passed Monday, only one member of Congress — Democrat or Republican — is needed to bring a "motion to vacate," which forces a vote on removing the speaker. That would need only a simple majority of the House to pass to oust McCarthy."

So Democrats have it within their power to determine just which Republican becomes Speaker with the GOP divided as it is, but they're likely better off just staying united and out of the fight.

[MichMan]

11. That was the same procedure in place before 2019

Speaker Pelosi changed it when she was named Speaker in 2019. The rule is reverting back to what it had been previously.

I dont recall the one vote requirement to call for an order to vacate being an issue before, nor was calling for a motion every day ever utilized. In fact, it has been over a hundred years since a motion to vacate was introduced for a vote.


Of course, if someone wanted to call for a vote daily, or even several times a day, I suppose they could.

[former9thward]

19. This was the rule until 2019.

It was changed then by Pelosi so that only leadership could make the motion. Now it has gone back to the old rule. I think people are making too much of it. There was not an issue with it when it was the rule before and I doubt their will be now.

On edit I see Michman made the same point I did right above me. I did not see his post when I made mine.