It's absurd that we require a majority vote for house speaker. It should be as simple as whoever gets the most votes. Or you have to vote for A or B for your vote to even be counted. None of this "present" nonsense.
212 vs 199, ok Hakeem Jeffries wins.
Most likely, this would make the Republicans vote for whoever their candidate is, rather than a minority Democrat winner.
Not saying I disagree with you per se. I had the same thought when reading this news.
The current system was probably designed to promote compromise, even across party lines. But we all know how well that's working out these days.
Plurality voting is one of the best systems if your goal is to elect someone that most people don't want.
This!
Have two+ really good candidates and an awful one with niche appeal.
Guess who plurality gives the awful one a great chance at winning.
This is such a bad idea. Do you think people would vote the exact same way if this was how it works instead?
That'd be a waste of time. The Republicans would use their majority to immediately dismiss him.
perhaps a period of immunity then. Prime Ministers in the UK get a year of immunity if they win a no confidence vote
The speaker isn't a job laid out in law other than being listed as 3rd in succession. It exists at the acceptance of some rules adopted by a majority of the house. Those rules could just as well not include any speaker, it could call for everyone to dress as a banana on Tuesday.
That implies your government is functioning as it is meant to. Here in the US, it's not. It's just not.
Majority vote would lead to even more deadlocks and partisanship
It's absurd that we require a majority vote for house speaker. It should be as simple as whoever gets the most votes. Or you have to vote for A or B for your vote to even be counted. None of this "present" nonsense.
212 vs 199, ok Hakeem Jeffries wins.
Most likely, this would make the Republicans vote for whoever their candidate is, rather than a minority Democrat winner.
Not saying I disagree with you per se. I had the same thought when reading this news.
The current system was probably designed to promote compromise, even across party lines. But we all know how well that's working out these days.
Plurality voting is one of the best systems if your goal is to elect someone that most people don't want.
This!
Have two+ really good candidates and an awful one with niche appeal.
Guess who plurality gives the awful one a great chance at winning.
This is such a bad idea. Do you think people would vote the exact same way if this was how it works instead?
That'd be a waste of time. The Republicans would use their majority to immediately dismiss him.
perhaps a period of immunity then. Prime Ministers in the UK get a year of immunity if they win a no confidence vote
The speaker isn't a job laid out in law other than being listed as 3rd in succession. It exists at the acceptance of some rules adopted by a majority of the house. Those rules could just as well not include any speaker, it could call for everyone to dress as a banana on Tuesday.
That implies your government is functioning as it is meant to. Here in the US, it's not. It's just not.
Majority vote would lead to even more deadlocks and partisanship