This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) was copied or moved into October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
I would say no, personally. David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Votes cast by member should really be the same format as in January. It's much easier to see the non-party-nominee vote and who they voted for. The current format requires a lot of squinting and sentence parsing since there are so many names in a short space. 71.198.113.75 ( talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we have a consensus to include or omit absences in the table § Votes cast by members? I'm sure at this point everyone is familiar with the similar talk section from the January election? microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
How is this? It seems like relevant background to me, but I'm sure some might think it's unnecessary. If so, maybe just explain in the text that all members listed besides Buck voted against vacating. Although that might become a list if some others defect.
Member | Party | District | Vote to vacate | Ballot vote cast | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | ||||
Don Bacon | Republican | NE 2 | Against | McCarthy | |
Gus Bilirakis | Republican | FL 12 | Against | absent [a] | |
Ken Buck | Republican | CO 4 | Vacate | Emmer | |
Lori Chavez-DeRemer | Republican | OR 5 | Against | McCarthy | |
Anthony D'Esposito | Republican | NY 4 | Against | Zeldin | |
Mario Díaz-Balart | Republican | FL 26 | Against | Scalise | |
Jake Ellzey | Republican | TX 6 | Against | Garcia | |
Andrew Garbarino | Republican | NY 2 | Against | Zeldin | |
Carlos Giménez | Republican | FL 28 | Against | McCarthy | |
Tony Gonzales | Republican | TX 23 | Against | Scalise | |
Kay Granger | Republican | TX 12 | Against | Scalise | |
John James | Republican | MI 10 | Against | Cole | |
Mike Kelly | Republican | PA 16 | Against | Scalise | |
Jen Kiggans | Republican | VA 2 | Against | McCarthy | |
Nick LaLota | Republican | NY 1 | Against | Zeldin | |
Doug LaMalfa | Republican | CA 1 | Against | McCarthy | |
Mike Lawler | Republican | NY 17 | Against | McCarthy | |
John Rutherford | Republican | FL 5 | Against | Scalise | |
Mike Simpson | Republican | ID 2 | Against | Scalise | |
Victoria Spartz | Republican | IN 5 | Against | Massie | |
Steve Womack | Republican | AR 3 | Against | Scalise |
eduardog3000 ( talk) 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I made a Wikimedia category a few days ago if people who upload media would like to add it there. I've already begun to populate it. Going to add Aguilar's speech soon. SDudley ( talk) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would the vote to empower McHenry be a third vote or a separate section? Esolo5002 ( talk) 15:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Would a sentence stating that all non-members who received votes have been former members of the house be OR or not and if it would be OK, where would such a sentence go? Naraht ( talk) 17:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The way this works in the table is to currently have it over the name of the non-nominated recipient, but I feel that as we enter more ballots, the prose of this hat note won't work. Further, in the event that someone is nominated who recieved votes without being nominated prior, this whole thing goes out the window. We need an alternative to showing this hat note. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish) 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | 1st ballot October 17 |
2nd ballot October 18 |
3rd ballot October 19 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | % | Votes | % | Votes | % | |||
Democratic | Hakeem Jeffries ( NY 8) | 212 | 49.1% | 212 | 49.0% | |||
Republican | Jim Jordan ( OH 4) | 200 | 46.3% | 199 | 46.0% | |||
Republican | Steve Scalise ( LA 1) | 7 | 1.6% | 7 | 1.6% | |||
Republican | Kevin McCarthy ( CA 20) | 6 | 1.4% | 5 | 1.2% | |||
Republican | Lee Zeldin | 3 | 0.7% | 3 | 0.7% |
I've made these two maps showing the representative districts, and who the representatives voted for on the first and second Ballot, would these be relevant to add? or are they not that important considering that the map is mostly just Jeffries and Jordan, with only some small changes between them?
The Maps: https://imgur.com/a/ZO6j2CE FridaFischer2000 ( talk) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There are 3 tables telling very similar information regarding the votes. I suggest we remove at least one of them. My suggestion would be either the first or third. KD0710 ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if Jordan is fully giving up. But we should be ready to update the page a lot soon.
Seems like a resolution to empower McHenry is going to be the immediate outcome. And this election might be postponed for the next month until after the November funding deadline. Seems to me like this will be an incomplete Speaker election. And we might either have to merge/update with whatever subsequent election or leave this as a page that has an unresolved outcome. SDudley ( talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I had commented out the columns for the third vote yesterday, but was reverted. Indeed, there wasn't a vote yesterday. There not being a real way to assess whether or not a vote will actually occur until it is taken up on the floor, I don't think this article should jump the gun on saying a) whether or not there even *will* be another vote (at least, perhaps not for a long while) or b) the date such a vote might actually occur. Right now the article indicates there will be a vote today, but that's far from certain. I also don't think the blank column adds anything, even if we could be certain about the vote scheduling. Cmprince ( talk) 14:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Given the end of the Jordan candidacy as we have known it, I believe that we should create subheadings under the GOP nomination and Election section going forward. It seems like “starting over” for the Republicans indicates a major shift and warrants new subheadings.
I might even consider splitting the Republican nomination into First Republican Nomination and Second Republican Nomination as separate headings, depending on the outcome.
KD0710 (
talk)
18:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Do we need another page? I specifically wonder how we'll handle the infobox. Unlike with Scalise, who got no votes and could easily be removed, and McCarthy in January who had multiple ballots but won, this is a nominee that had multiple ballots then got booted. Should we remove Jordan from the infobox entirely? Make a new page dedicated to whomever is the new nominee? Is there a format to divide the nominee portion of the infobox so that maybe we could keep the Jordan ballot results after the new nominee is picked? GardenCosmos ( talk) 18:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to propose keeping the article in chronological order. It becomes confusing to the reader if it jumps back and forth in time. See this revision for how it would look. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 00:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between different sources about the votes to remove Jordan. Some say he lost by 122-86, others 112-86. How should we handle that? Rogl94 ( talk) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Can someone make the pictures of the candidates the same size? Jordan is showing a bit shorter than Jeffries. KD0710 ( talk) 20:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
With the 4th ballot now scheduled for October 24th, and the House being Speaker-less for the past 17 days, is it time to consider what the title of the article should be if the election carries on into November? Based on previous elections that lasted over a month, it seems the correct nomenclature would be October - November 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election." I base this on the December 1855 - February 1856 election, as well as other long-winded elections. Thoughts? Spaceshuttlediscovery ( talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It's started in the list of candidates that McCarthy is leader of the Republican Conference. This is incorrect, there is no such title. The Conference has a Chair, Stefanik, but McCarthy doesn't have any official role in the leadership since he was removed as Speaker (and declined to run again) 92.21.247.136 ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
the Speaker serves as the primary spokesperson for his congressional party.-- Super Goku V ( talk) 08:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm (besides a tweet) that Austin Scott actually lost the nomination vote? Per CNN he dropped out last minute. [2] KD0710 ( talk) 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Should we add endorsements for the third nomination or is this article long enough? Esolo5002 ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move Palmer to the withdrawn section as he has dropped out, per Reuters. 203.211.79.215 ( talk) 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Might it be worth considering a split of the GOP nomination into it's own article? This article is rather long and independent from floor vote, the nomination seems rather newsworthy. Thoughts? KD0710 ( talk) 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I've created a draft. More likely than not it won't become an article, but it might be worthwhile to have. Draft:Republican Nomination for the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. Esolo5002 ( talk) 21:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
With this article getting very long, I think it might be a good idea to split this article into October 2023 Republican conference nomination process for Speaker of the House or something similar. I created a draft for that page if you want to check it out or edit; it’s basically the same as the current Republican nomination section. Please discuss. Politicdude ( talk) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anybody have a source which could clear up if the 3 Republican delegates really were again allowed to vote? Because on this one I would find it odd, as it is a test for the real floor vote. Otherwise the "Did not vote" number would be 3 (for a total of 221), which also would fit with the decreasing "Did not vote" number on the earlier ballots. Rogl94 ( talk) 19:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
So does he stay in the infobox even though he was never brought to the floor as the nominee? does he get a special note? He has received votes before just prior to his 4 hour nomination. SDudley ( talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
that only McCarthy, Jeffries, and "Others" have a spot in the infobox.Currently, we are between nominations, so Jordan has the most Republican support in the last ballot and Mike Johnson is the current Republican nominee for Speaker. Presumably, Jordan will be removed from the Infobox following the fourth ballot, regardless of if Johnson gets a majority or not. (Alternatively, he remains in the Infobox like some of the other Speaker election articles.) -- Super Goku V ( talk) 06:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Is the declined section really necessary? It doesn't really matter and just looks disorganized. Notable decliners could just be written in, Personisinsterest ( talk) 22:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I had previously WP:BOLD edited the article into a chronological presentation of the events/developments, as it last was in this edit by me. This was reverted.
I highly-urge that a chronological format/presentation be restored.
Readers should not need to travel up-and-down and between sections to make sense of how things unfolded. SecretName101 ( talk) 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Editors should [...] structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting (which are detailed in this guide).I don't think it would be considered reader-friendly based on the objections to ordering this chronologically.
At the current moment the vote has the McCarthy write in at 2nd overall behind Mike Johnson. Should we make a more definite depiction of that in the column? -- SDudley ( talk) 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
If we are following the precedent of the January election then the ballot in the infobox should be called "Fourth ballot" and not "Final ballot". Or we should also change the January page. Thoughts? SDudley ( talk) 18:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Should this page not be titled october 2023 battle for the gavel? 137.52.180.169 ( talk) 20:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"On October 24, the conference nominated Majority Whip Tom Emmer, who withdrew shortly thereafter due to former President Donald Trump being opposed to his candidacy and for some of his colleagues opposing Emmer's support of the Respect for Marriage Act. This seemingly showed that opposition to same-sex marriage is a litmus test for Republican candidates. During an internal meeting, Georgia representative Rick Allen told Emmer that he needed to "get right with Jesus" for his vote, stating that support for it was intolerable for a speaker candidate."
I understand what this paragraph is going for, but it seems rather off-topic for the page lede and has slightly weaselly language ("this seemingly showed"). Additionally, it is sourced to WP:HUFFPOST, which has no consensus on its reliability for political topics. I think Emmer's same-sex marriage position and internal debate about it is definitely worth mentioning, but perhaps some of this content could be adjusted, re-referenced and moved into the body of the article. Kafoxe ( talk) 23:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The results were seen as establishing opposition to [...]which got changed to
This seemingly showed that opposition to [...]
[t]alk show content should be treated as opinion pieces.Given that this is part of "MaddowBlog", I have doubts that this will be acceptable and I don't see a better source for it. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 07:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The current table as it exists now is
Member | Party | District | Ballot vote cast | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
October 17 | October 18 | October 20 | October 25 | |||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
Don Bacon | Republican | NE 2 | McCarthy | McHenry | Johnson |
However I'd like to propose the header of the table look like
Member | Party | District | Ballot vote cast | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jordan Nomination | Johnson Nomination | |||||
1st ballot October 17 |
2nd ballot October 18 |
3rd ballot October 20 |
4th ballot October 25 | |||
Don Bacon | Republican | NE 2 | McCarthy | McHenry | Johnson |
The reason I want to suggest this is that the dates in addition to the ballot vote cast are redundnat: the dates are mentioned earlier in the article, and there is no need to group the dates like they have on January 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election § All ballots: votes not cast for party nominee because no two ballots occured on the same date. In this proposal, the dates are grouped in the cell and added in smaller text like the ballot vote summaries above in the article.
Instead, in the proposed change, the grouping is by republican nominee. This will add clarity to the table, where the reason the color changes from red on Jordan to red on Johnson is that was the republican nominee for the ballot. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus for the proposed move, but there is a consensus to move the nominated articles back to capitalized "Speaker", consistent with previous consensus determined on this point. BD2412 T 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
– According to WP:NC-ELECT, elections must use the format of "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [type] election." In this case, a policy-compliant article title following this would be "[year] United States House of Representatives speakership election", as it relates to the election of the speaker of the US House. This adjective form would make it analogous to the standard of using "presidential" or "leadership" in elections for president or leader. Notable example: 1992 Labour Party leadership election (election for the position of leader like this is for speaker).
Scrapping my original request at Talk:2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election upon realizing the existence of NC-ELECT BurgeoningContracting 05:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
an act or process of electingwith a further definition of electing being
to select by vote for an office, position, or membershipand with an example being
elected her class president. This matters due to the above issue over if NCELECT applies or not. NCGAL, which NCELECT is part of, does not have any mention of a restriction to only national elections. In fact, it is the opposite as NCGAL makes it clear that it covers notable elections of any size through the examples at NCELECT and through NCGAL's lede, which states that the page
[...] contains naming conventions for articles related to government offices, elections and legislationwithout any mentioned restriction. NCELECT's examples range from multi-national like 1945 French legislative election in Algeria to more local like 2007 Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election. I found an additional example where NCELECT was cited in a RM for a local mayoral race for a city. The definition of election also does not have such a restriction with its example of a class president election.
I think the issues that Republicans are having with governing in the House and their reliance on Democrats to pass key legislation may warrant its own article. I have created a draft,
Draft:2023–24 House of Representatives legislative coalition, which I think talk page watchers of this page may be interested in. I would love help and suggestions, including those from people who don't believe this warrants an article at all. Thanks!
Esolo5002 (
talk)
19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) was copied or moved into October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
I would say no, personally. David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Votes cast by member should really be the same format as in January. It's much easier to see the non-party-nominee vote and who they voted for. The current format requires a lot of squinting and sentence parsing since there are so many names in a short space. 71.198.113.75 ( talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we have a consensus to include or omit absences in the table § Votes cast by members? I'm sure at this point everyone is familiar with the similar talk section from the January election? microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
How is this? It seems like relevant background to me, but I'm sure some might think it's unnecessary. If so, maybe just explain in the text that all members listed besides Buck voted against vacating. Although that might become a list if some others defect.
Member | Party | District | Vote to vacate | Ballot vote cast | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | ||||
Don Bacon | Republican | NE 2 | Against | McCarthy | |
Gus Bilirakis | Republican | FL 12 | Against | absent [a] | |
Ken Buck | Republican | CO 4 | Vacate | Emmer | |
Lori Chavez-DeRemer | Republican | OR 5 | Against | McCarthy | |
Anthony D'Esposito | Republican | NY 4 | Against | Zeldin | |
Mario Díaz-Balart | Republican | FL 26 | Against | Scalise | |
Jake Ellzey | Republican | TX 6 | Against | Garcia | |
Andrew Garbarino | Republican | NY 2 | Against | Zeldin | |
Carlos Giménez | Republican | FL 28 | Against | McCarthy | |
Tony Gonzales | Republican | TX 23 | Against | Scalise | |
Kay Granger | Republican | TX 12 | Against | Scalise | |
John James | Republican | MI 10 | Against | Cole | |
Mike Kelly | Republican | PA 16 | Against | Scalise | |
Jen Kiggans | Republican | VA 2 | Against | McCarthy | |
Nick LaLota | Republican | NY 1 | Against | Zeldin | |
Doug LaMalfa | Republican | CA 1 | Against | McCarthy | |
Mike Lawler | Republican | NY 17 | Against | McCarthy | |
John Rutherford | Republican | FL 5 | Against | Scalise | |
Mike Simpson | Republican | ID 2 | Against | Scalise | |
Victoria Spartz | Republican | IN 5 | Against | Massie | |
Steve Womack | Republican | AR 3 | Against | Scalise |
eduardog3000 ( talk) 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I made a Wikimedia category a few days ago if people who upload media would like to add it there. I've already begun to populate it. Going to add Aguilar's speech soon. SDudley ( talk) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would the vote to empower McHenry be a third vote or a separate section? Esolo5002 ( talk) 15:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Would a sentence stating that all non-members who received votes have been former members of the house be OR or not and if it would be OK, where would such a sentence go? Naraht ( talk) 17:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The way this works in the table is to currently have it over the name of the non-nominated recipient, but I feel that as we enter more ballots, the prose of this hat note won't work. Further, in the event that someone is nominated who recieved votes without being nominated prior, this whole thing goes out the window. We need an alternative to showing this hat note. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish) 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | 1st ballot October 17 |
2nd ballot October 18 |
3rd ballot October 19 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | % | Votes | % | Votes | % | |||
Democratic | Hakeem Jeffries ( NY 8) | 212 | 49.1% | 212 | 49.0% | |||
Republican | Jim Jordan ( OH 4) | 200 | 46.3% | 199 | 46.0% | |||
Republican | Steve Scalise ( LA 1) | 7 | 1.6% | 7 | 1.6% | |||
Republican | Kevin McCarthy ( CA 20) | 6 | 1.4% | 5 | 1.2% | |||
Republican | Lee Zeldin | 3 | 0.7% | 3 | 0.7% |
I've made these two maps showing the representative districts, and who the representatives voted for on the first and second Ballot, would these be relevant to add? or are they not that important considering that the map is mostly just Jeffries and Jordan, with only some small changes between them?
The Maps: https://imgur.com/a/ZO6j2CE FridaFischer2000 ( talk) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There are 3 tables telling very similar information regarding the votes. I suggest we remove at least one of them. My suggestion would be either the first or third. KD0710 ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if Jordan is fully giving up. But we should be ready to update the page a lot soon.
Seems like a resolution to empower McHenry is going to be the immediate outcome. And this election might be postponed for the next month until after the November funding deadline. Seems to me like this will be an incomplete Speaker election. And we might either have to merge/update with whatever subsequent election or leave this as a page that has an unresolved outcome. SDudley ( talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I had commented out the columns for the third vote yesterday, but was reverted. Indeed, there wasn't a vote yesterday. There not being a real way to assess whether or not a vote will actually occur until it is taken up on the floor, I don't think this article should jump the gun on saying a) whether or not there even *will* be another vote (at least, perhaps not for a long while) or b) the date such a vote might actually occur. Right now the article indicates there will be a vote today, but that's far from certain. I also don't think the blank column adds anything, even if we could be certain about the vote scheduling. Cmprince ( talk) 14:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Given the end of the Jordan candidacy as we have known it, I believe that we should create subheadings under the GOP nomination and Election section going forward. It seems like “starting over” for the Republicans indicates a major shift and warrants new subheadings.
I might even consider splitting the Republican nomination into First Republican Nomination and Second Republican Nomination as separate headings, depending on the outcome.
KD0710 (
talk)
18:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Do we need another page? I specifically wonder how we'll handle the infobox. Unlike with Scalise, who got no votes and could easily be removed, and McCarthy in January who had multiple ballots but won, this is a nominee that had multiple ballots then got booted. Should we remove Jordan from the infobox entirely? Make a new page dedicated to whomever is the new nominee? Is there a format to divide the nominee portion of the infobox so that maybe we could keep the Jordan ballot results after the new nominee is picked? GardenCosmos ( talk) 18:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to propose keeping the article in chronological order. It becomes confusing to the reader if it jumps back and forth in time. See this revision for how it would look. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 00:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between different sources about the votes to remove Jordan. Some say he lost by 122-86, others 112-86. How should we handle that? Rogl94 ( talk) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Can someone make the pictures of the candidates the same size? Jordan is showing a bit shorter than Jeffries. KD0710 ( talk) 20:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
With the 4th ballot now scheduled for October 24th, and the House being Speaker-less for the past 17 days, is it time to consider what the title of the article should be if the election carries on into November? Based on previous elections that lasted over a month, it seems the correct nomenclature would be October - November 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election." I base this on the December 1855 - February 1856 election, as well as other long-winded elections. Thoughts? Spaceshuttlediscovery ( talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It's started in the list of candidates that McCarthy is leader of the Republican Conference. This is incorrect, there is no such title. The Conference has a Chair, Stefanik, but McCarthy doesn't have any official role in the leadership since he was removed as Speaker (and declined to run again) 92.21.247.136 ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
the Speaker serves as the primary spokesperson for his congressional party.-- Super Goku V ( talk) 08:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm (besides a tweet) that Austin Scott actually lost the nomination vote? Per CNN he dropped out last minute. [2] KD0710 ( talk) 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Should we add endorsements for the third nomination or is this article long enough? Esolo5002 ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move Palmer to the withdrawn section as he has dropped out, per Reuters. 203.211.79.215 ( talk) 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Might it be worth considering a split of the GOP nomination into it's own article? This article is rather long and independent from floor vote, the nomination seems rather newsworthy. Thoughts? KD0710 ( talk) 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I've created a draft. More likely than not it won't become an article, but it might be worthwhile to have. Draft:Republican Nomination for the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. Esolo5002 ( talk) 21:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
With this article getting very long, I think it might be a good idea to split this article into October 2023 Republican conference nomination process for Speaker of the House or something similar. I created a draft for that page if you want to check it out or edit; it’s basically the same as the current Republican nomination section. Please discuss. Politicdude ( talk) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anybody have a source which could clear up if the 3 Republican delegates really were again allowed to vote? Because on this one I would find it odd, as it is a test for the real floor vote. Otherwise the "Did not vote" number would be 3 (for a total of 221), which also would fit with the decreasing "Did not vote" number on the earlier ballots. Rogl94 ( talk) 19:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
So does he stay in the infobox even though he was never brought to the floor as the nominee? does he get a special note? He has received votes before just prior to his 4 hour nomination. SDudley ( talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
that only McCarthy, Jeffries, and "Others" have a spot in the infobox.Currently, we are between nominations, so Jordan has the most Republican support in the last ballot and Mike Johnson is the current Republican nominee for Speaker. Presumably, Jordan will be removed from the Infobox following the fourth ballot, regardless of if Johnson gets a majority or not. (Alternatively, he remains in the Infobox like some of the other Speaker election articles.) -- Super Goku V ( talk) 06:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Is the declined section really necessary? It doesn't really matter and just looks disorganized. Notable decliners could just be written in, Personisinsterest ( talk) 22:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I had previously WP:BOLD edited the article into a chronological presentation of the events/developments, as it last was in this edit by me. This was reverted.
I highly-urge that a chronological format/presentation be restored.
Readers should not need to travel up-and-down and between sections to make sense of how things unfolded. SecretName101 ( talk) 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Editors should [...] structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting (which are detailed in this guide).I don't think it would be considered reader-friendly based on the objections to ordering this chronologically.
At the current moment the vote has the McCarthy write in at 2nd overall behind Mike Johnson. Should we make a more definite depiction of that in the column? -- SDudley ( talk) 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
If we are following the precedent of the January election then the ballot in the infobox should be called "Fourth ballot" and not "Final ballot". Or we should also change the January page. Thoughts? SDudley ( talk) 18:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Should this page not be titled october 2023 battle for the gavel? 137.52.180.169 ( talk) 20:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"On October 24, the conference nominated Majority Whip Tom Emmer, who withdrew shortly thereafter due to former President Donald Trump being opposed to his candidacy and for some of his colleagues opposing Emmer's support of the Respect for Marriage Act. This seemingly showed that opposition to same-sex marriage is a litmus test for Republican candidates. During an internal meeting, Georgia representative Rick Allen told Emmer that he needed to "get right with Jesus" for his vote, stating that support for it was intolerable for a speaker candidate."
I understand what this paragraph is going for, but it seems rather off-topic for the page lede and has slightly weaselly language ("this seemingly showed"). Additionally, it is sourced to WP:HUFFPOST, which has no consensus on its reliability for political topics. I think Emmer's same-sex marriage position and internal debate about it is definitely worth mentioning, but perhaps some of this content could be adjusted, re-referenced and moved into the body of the article. Kafoxe ( talk) 23:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The results were seen as establishing opposition to [...]which got changed to
This seemingly showed that opposition to [...]
[t]alk show content should be treated as opinion pieces.Given that this is part of "MaddowBlog", I have doubts that this will be acceptable and I don't see a better source for it. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 07:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The current table as it exists now is
Member | Party | District | Ballot vote cast | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
October 17 | October 18 | October 20 | October 25 | |||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
Don Bacon | Republican | NE 2 | McCarthy | McHenry | Johnson |
However I'd like to propose the header of the table look like
Member | Party | District | Ballot vote cast | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jordan Nomination | Johnson Nomination | |||||
1st ballot October 17 |
2nd ballot October 18 |
3rd ballot October 20 |
4th ballot October 25 | |||
Don Bacon | Republican | NE 2 | McCarthy | McHenry | Johnson |
The reason I want to suggest this is that the dates in addition to the ballot vote cast are redundnat: the dates are mentioned earlier in the article, and there is no need to group the dates like they have on January 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election § All ballots: votes not cast for party nominee because no two ballots occured on the same date. In this proposal, the dates are grouped in the cell and added in smaller text like the ballot vote summaries above in the article.
Instead, in the proposed change, the grouping is by republican nominee. This will add clarity to the table, where the reason the color changes from red on Jordan to red on Johnson is that was the republican nominee for the ballot. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus for the proposed move, but there is a consensus to move the nominated articles back to capitalized "Speaker", consistent with previous consensus determined on this point. BD2412 T 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
– According to WP:NC-ELECT, elections must use the format of "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [type] election." In this case, a policy-compliant article title following this would be "[year] United States House of Representatives speakership election", as it relates to the election of the speaker of the US House. This adjective form would make it analogous to the standard of using "presidential" or "leadership" in elections for president or leader. Notable example: 1992 Labour Party leadership election (election for the position of leader like this is for speaker).
Scrapping my original request at Talk:2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election upon realizing the existence of NC-ELECT BurgeoningContracting 05:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
an act or process of electingwith a further definition of electing being
to select by vote for an office, position, or membershipand with an example being
elected her class president. This matters due to the above issue over if NCELECT applies or not. NCGAL, which NCELECT is part of, does not have any mention of a restriction to only national elections. In fact, it is the opposite as NCGAL makes it clear that it covers notable elections of any size through the examples at NCELECT and through NCGAL's lede, which states that the page
[...] contains naming conventions for articles related to government offices, elections and legislationwithout any mentioned restriction. NCELECT's examples range from multi-national like 1945 French legislative election in Algeria to more local like 2007 Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election. I found an additional example where NCELECT was cited in a RM for a local mayoral race for a city. The definition of election also does not have such a restriction with its example of a class president election.
I think the issues that Republicans are having with governing in the House and their reliance on Democrats to pass key legislation may warrant its own article. I have created a draft,
Draft:2023–24 House of Representatives legislative coalition, which I think talk page watchers of this page may be interested in. I would love help and suggestions, including those from people who don't believe this warrants an article at all. Thanks!
Esolo5002 (
talk)
19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).