854
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
854 points (98.5% liked)
politics
18069 readers
3975 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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