Talk:January 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election/Archive 1

Archive 1

McCarthy has easily won GOP nomination

188 to 31 votes 93.206.53.87 (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox too wide

May we please narrow the infobox to two candidates in each row? That way the page's intro won't be squeezed to the left. I'm asking here, because I attempted it 'eight' times, but kept getting 'edit conflicted'. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

First ballot totals

How can the total vote add up to 440, when there's only 434 members? GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Jim Jordan's six votes were counted twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

164 years

Willform sorry i misread. But you'll need a source for the 164 years (i didn't see it in the reference) EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Votes in results box

@Onetwothreeip: I noticed that you integrated defectors into the results box using collapsed tables. However, mobile site does not support collapsing, hence, the results box is becoming way too bulky, so I'm separating this data out into another section, where every defector's every round of voting will be recorded. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting the issues with mobile, I think the table you have added is a good addition. We can probably have both in the article, following examples like Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 and Parliamentary votes on Brexit#Votes during the 57th Parliament of the United Kingdom (2017–19). I can work on something later. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Spartz

Just coming into the PBS livestream for the 4th ballot. Did Victoria Spartz vote Present in the previous three votes? Are we adding those who vote Present in the same table as those who voted against their party's nominee? Bkissin (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Spartz only voted "present" in the fourth ballot. Vacant0 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't want to be too WP:BOLD and add her to the list, but CX Zoom beat me to it! Bkissin (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Cloud has not yet voted on the 5th ballot

@Gelbphoenix Cloud has not yet voted on the 5th ballot. Please stop listing him as having voted for Donalds. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Cloud shouted "Donalds" but the chair didn't recognised that. Gelbphoenix (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nominations in Infobox

@CX Zoom: Is it really appropriate to list the ballots for which each candidate was nominated in the infobox at all? I would think not, as that portion could get pretty cluttered if ballots continue. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rektroth: I just saw that out of nowhere, and improved the language. Agreed to your point, feel free to remove. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Second/latest round votes

@ElijahPepe: The general rule of thumb is that only first & last round votes are included in infobox. Infoboxes aren't for bloating up. For detailed information, people should read the article. So, I'm reverting your edit, and expect you to have a discussion here before you re-revert. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Cite this "rule of thumb". There are three Speaker votes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: Literally any multi-round election, usually Rank choice voting happens, so check any of them out. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, please ping on reply. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense as so many rounds would bloat the infobox. Its also not like this information is readily available further down in the article, first and last rounds is appropriate.Yeoutie (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps too, it may be best to wait until each ballot is completed, rather then updating 'each' casting vote. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Characterizing Donalds as a "contender"

I don't feel strongly about this, but it doesn't really seem like Donalds is a contender for Speaker (as the lede currently characterizes him), he's simply a protest vote. I don't have a Washington Post subscription, but is that how reliable sources are describing Donalds? SS451 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Reactions section?

Should we include reactions to the prolonged elections such as the comments from Biden today plus McCarthy and Jeffries and other significant congresspeople? Also could include some context to why the 20 are voting the way they are and what their goals are (although that seems hard to pin down). Yeoutie (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that discuss reactions from other significant figures, such as Biden, you are free to create a reactions section and mention those which your sources do so long as you cite them. Although it may be best to not to report mere theories about the intentions of the 20 Republican defectors. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

ballots

Didn't the 1923 election go to 9 ballots? Seems like that is contrary to some of the facts in this page. DAWGinRoswell 22:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dawginroswell: Looks like it did to me. "The last time that an election for speaker even went to a second ballot was 92 years ago — in 1923 — when Frederick H. Gillett (R-Mass.) required nine ballots to win reelection as speaker, according to the Congressional Research Service. That was the only speaker election in the past century for which multiple ballots were even needed. And Gillett wound up winning." "The last time a speaker election took more than one ballot was in 1923, when Speaker Frederick Gillett (R-Mass.) was reelected on the ninth ballot." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Lee Zeldin

Should we add Lee Zeldin to the infobox? Even though he is not a member of the House of Representatives and was not formally nominated for the first ballot, he did receive a vote. — Chevvin 18:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Jim Banks as well. — Chevvin 18:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with adding them. We should only be adding "major" candidates, who have received 10+ votes in any ballot. Single vote defections have happened in the past, but they are not true candidates. Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeldin and Banks have not been nominated for speaker, while those who are currently in the infobox were. Vacant0 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure nominations are the only key to being in the info box since Jordan was nominated. I think the point is that he a.) He was nominated and b.) accepted the nomination by voting for himself. KD0710 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Seventh ballot

Is the seventh ballot going to be held today (2 day of voting)? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the house adjourned until 8PM EST. Fadedmaxcom (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on the rules of the House, but my understanding is that they could still technically move to adjourn as soon as they come to order instead of holding a vote immediately. So it might be inappropriate for us to assume that there will be another vote just because they're scheduled to meet again - although we could say they're *likely* to vote again if reliable sources believe so. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

And we've now seen that is possible, so I say that, in the future, we should not assume that a vote will take place on any given day. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

adjourned! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the vote was called by a margin of two, but my initial assumption was that it would be finished today, however who knows how long this will drag on for... Fadedmaxcom (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Welp they just voted to vote tomorrow or whatever Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

They voted meet tomorrow - they are not necessarily going to hold a ballot tomorrow. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The tables are getting confusing, especially as more elections are held without a concluding result. Please make a chart like this, but improved by a more charty editor. TGCP (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Consolidating the tables into one will definitely be necessary, but I do not at all agree that a line graph is appropriate. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How about a dot chart? TGCP (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have an idea how the election section be divided by the different days, but keep the tables.- Josh Long (watching C-Span). 2600:1700:6BCC:1200:D49:E322:2632:CAC9 17:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think consolidating rounds when there are no changes should be enacted now. For instance list rounds 4-6 in one column and name it "Rounds 4-6". KD0710 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding 'others' to the infobox

Should 'others' be included in the infobox for votes going to non-nominated speaker candidates like Hern and Trump? Like the infobox for 2021 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election? It'd be adding all the votes going to other candidates that are not Jeffries, McCarthy or Donalds. 2601:249:8E00:420:9492:DD8E:B7A3:1AF9 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe it should be, as all prior elections include it. But it's been readded and removed a few times already, so a discussion may need to be had. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not support adding that. It is irrelevant really. The %s alone indicate that votes were cast for others and we expect them to read this article that's gotten pretty big now. Don't know to what extent WP:5% rule is applicable here, but I really like that in essence. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If we abide by the 5% rule for this article - which I'm not sure is truly appropriate since this is a intragovernmental election and not a public election - even Byron Donalds shouldn't be included in the infobox. But I'd say his candidacy is undeniably significant enough to be included (and situations like this are why I have never supported the 5% rule anyway). -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is his candidacy significant? The commented note above his section in the infobox even says "Main anti-McCarthy candidate". Why not just total up all the anti-McCarthy votes? The name put forward as the most likely alternative if McCarthy gives up is Scalise, not Donalds. -- Jfhutson (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That note in the infobox is commented for a reason - it is erroneous, and frankly should just be removed completely. And even if we could reduce him to the "anti-McCarthy candidate", that doesn't mean his candidacy is not significant enough to be included in the infobox; in fact, I'd argue the opposite. Votes for him could be total and complete jokes not to be taken seriously at all, but that doesn't mean his candidacy isn't 'significant' enough to be included in the infobox. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, that said, now that the defectors don't seem to even be presenting a united front behind Donalds, it may now be appropriate to remove him. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Hern to infobox

Hern's had two votes total and was formally nominated for the speakership in the 9th round. Should he be added in the infobox or should we stick with Donalds as the 'anti-McCarthy candidate'. 2601:249:8E00:420:9492:DD8E:B7A3:1AF9 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who's formally nominated should be in the infobox, but at least anyone who was formally nominated in the most recent round should be there. Reliable sources don't make any sort of distinction between "major" and "minor" candidates at a ten-vote threshold or whatever so neither should we. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elli: I contest this. Why do we need him in the infobox? Hern didn't even vote for himself, this is absurd. Next round one of them will nominate CX Zoom for speakership, and you'll add me to the infobox? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes? Of course? The most obvious and consistent criteria here is to do what other reliable sources do and include people who are nominated on the floor. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe we actually apply our own set conditions, WP:5% rule. Ofcourse, it was not drafted keeping in mind this election but the points raised are pretty reasonable. I'm not going to add 22 members if every holdout decides to nominate a different candidate. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elli: It is essential that the set of rules we agree to work upon does not yield disastrous results in a perfectly possible real life scenario. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The 5% rule is for public elections and applying it here makes no sense. If 22 people were nominated, then we could determine what to do then. The fact is, 22 people aren't nominated. Maybe "nominated and got at least two votes" would work? That likely wouldn't run into an issue even in a strange hypothetical. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Votes from the 20 are purely performative in natire. Just a vote for vote's sake. I don't trust them that they won't end voting for 20 odd candidates. Imo the general rule for infobox inclusion should be either "Accepted nomination and got at least 1 vote (apart from self)" OR "Got 5 or more votes. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If they do, we can deal with that then. 5 votes is pretty arbitrary to use as a cut-off. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Let’s see how many votes he gets this round. Donalds still seems to be the real third option. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel that the infobox should include candidates who have been formally nominated to the speakership. 2601:249:8E00:420:9492:DD8E:B7A3:1AF9 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hern was formally nominated. Neither are serious candidates. Everyone but McCarthy and Jeffries should be consolidated as "Others." Reliable sources say Scalise is the most obvious alternative. Not that he should be in the infobox, but it is not true that Donalds is a "third option." People voting for him are just voting against McCarthy. -- Jfhutson (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

With Donalds on the box then, it makes sense to include Hern then. Ideally I think people formally nominated should be listed on the infobox at this time. Once a speaker has been elected, I think 'others' should be included which would be a sum of non-formally nominated individuals who received votes overall. Yet at this time, I think Hern should be included on the infobox since Donalds has been included. 2601:249:8E00:420:9492:DD8E:B7A3:1AF9 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think 2 options are reasonable. 1.) The major party nominees and “other” or 2.) A nominee who voted for themselves KD0710 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally believe only individuals who have received 5 votes should be in the infobox, since 5 votes is the amount needed to deny McCarthy the nomination. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hern currently has sixth votes as of the 10th round. I think he should be included on the infobox as Donalds is. 2601:249:8E00:420:9492:DD8E:B7A3:1AF9 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that's a better reason to just remove them both. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe add "others" with a footnote breaking down the numbers like '6 votes went to Hern, 4 to Donalds" 2601:249:8E00:420:9492:DD8E:B7A3:1AF9 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, both were formally nominated and received a significant number of votes. Rockin (Talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that all candidates formally nominated in the latest round are significant enough to include in the infobox. Rockin (Talk) 22:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Hern to the infobox and if anyone disagrees, that could be the topic of discussion (removing Hern rather than including him) because personally, there's more arguments for inclusion than exclusion if Donalds remains on the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8E00:420:9492:DD8E:B7A3:1AF9 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the arguments here would support including Hern this round (since he got at least 5 votes and was nominated). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

lock and constant updates

Can we get this locked and prevent the updates every vote announcement? There's no reason for it to updated during the votes. Just creates extra edits to sort thru. Metallurgist (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I (an admin) do not see a need to semi-protect this page. Perhaps we can discuss with the editors updating on each vote to slow down and wait until after each round concludes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that updating the votes in real time needs to end. WP:NOTNP, and I have too many times had to revert edits by individuals who have jumped the gun and made edits based on votes that haven't yet been cast. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu is there another way to prevent constant updates? Metallurgist (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Metallurgist, discuss your concerns with the editors you think are editing too much, either here on the talk page or their user talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I only have access to mobile Wikipedia at the moment so investigating live updaters is a bit difficult, which is why I brought it up here. Metallurgist (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I 100 percent agree. Wikipedia isn't a live update stream. KD0710 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Users of Wikipedia need these live updates. Do not lock.173.187.243.166 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTNP KD0710 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The live updates bothered me since Tuesday. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC

Why? There is nothing wrong with live updates.173.187.243.166 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@173.187.243.166 you can watch cspan or twitter. wikipedia is not meant for live updates. sporting events don't get this treatment Metallurgist (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sporting events do get this treatment, for instance the most recent darts world championship had updates about every five minutes. 74.117.230.98 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's untrue. I've definitely football and baseball games on here before that received live updates to the score. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rektroth Cricket matches get updated after every inning 2601:147:4300:1850:74DD:C12D:7201:F334 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu that protection is not needed at this stage. There is not enough "disruptive" activity. Though editors need to bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, WP:NOTNEWS. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There is literally nothing wrong with these edits. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The intent is not immediate info. It needs to be after the fact. Additionally, it clearly states WP is not for original reporting. Sitting by the TV and marking every vote in real-time is the definition of original reporting.KD0710 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how you get that on immediate info being somehow different from current or up-to-date information. On original reporting, reliable sources are reporting this in real-time, so there is nothing against editors including that information in real time. If the House were closed to the press, and we had editors in there somehow updating the article, that would be original reporting.-- Jfhutson (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@KD0710 the funny thing is this isn't official anyway until the clerk reports the tallies. these are just cspan feed results. i haven't seen any actual live reports on this anywhere, so it probably is original reporting. Metallurgist (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable media outlets report the votes (even though they aren't official) and we follow what reliable sources do. It's not original research (which is what's prohibited; we have no policy on "original reporting"). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I just thought it would be worth weighing in here as a very heavy user of this page over the last three days. I've found the real time updates to be remarkably useful and to add a lot of value to this page. If editors are prepared to make these updates then asking them to stop doing that seems to make the page less useful to some users and have absolutely zero benefits to anyone else. Please bear that in mind if you're going to make changes which make this page objectively worse for anyone reading it during the event!84.71.118.25 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@84.71.118.25 they've been useful to me as well, but usefulness is not the standard of Wikipedia. We know there's going to be a result. Theres not a rush to keep it updated. Metallurgist (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I realise that usefulness isn't the standard or the primary purpose and I'd understand if you were suggesting that the page be made less useful because there's some other important imperative, but equally it seems a bit silly to intentionally make it less useful for absolutely no reason!84.71.118.25 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Protection is completely unwarranted here. If people are making incorrect updates, they should be warned and asked to stop. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat There is certainly not a consensus here - nor is this a formal discussion. Until an actual consensus has been reached, edits providing live updates should be permitted. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see per WP:NOTAVOTE there is in fact a very clear consensus for there being no constant updates, as the opponents have not cited any relevant policy, while the supporters have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As others have said this isn't Twitter, and readers can watch the vote Live on YouTube, so Live updates are redundant. After each vote is read in the chamber we can put the results of that round of voting... Let's face it, this isn't going to be settled on the 10th, 15th, or 50th ballot. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

NOTNEWS isn't really relevant policy here. What might be relevant is WP:LIVESCORES, while it's about sports and not politics, the idea is similar. I'll note that there was not consensus to add a relevant rule to WP:NOT, but there is still a general consensus against constant live updates. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Snooker to a page about a unique multi-day political event makes no sense. WP:NOT is policy, and it says in the clearest possible terms Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage. The New York Times is covering the vote in real time so there is no original research involved. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to directly apply that guideline here, just providing an example of where editors have run into a similar issue and how they approached it there. I think that's relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum for copy pasting exclusively the updates published by the NYT -- Sleyece (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of other reliable sources are covering the voting live, including CBS, NPR, and MSNBC. Read the policy language. This is not a Snooker tournament. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A similar precedent might be the 2020 United States presidential election page, where IIRC we actually forbade anyone from updating the results section for a full 48 hours after results came in. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Votes cast by members section suggestion

I was just wondering whether it could be of any help to some readers that the different candidates voted for that are listed in the table could each be colour-coded, in order to aid users to keep a more obvious and clear track of the trends of different candidates, especially for someone like Gaetz who has voted most inconsistently/varied, so-to-speak (e.g. the background of cells with "Biggs" one subtle, faint colour, ones with "Jordan" another, ones with "Trump" another etc.). The only issue here would be making this accessible for colour-blind readers, so choices of colour would have to be made with that in mind. Phinbart (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not sure how many more candidates will end up getting votes. Perhaps after this is all settled it would make sense to color-code? Elli (talk | contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What terminology should we use to refer to congresspeople?

Currently there are three different terms being used to refer to congresspeople in the article, namely:

1. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California
2. Kevin McCarthy of California
3. California Republican Kevin McCarthy

For consistency and clarity's sake we should use only one throughout the article, so which one do people prefer? Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Would say the second one, as he's technically not yet a representative (till sworn in) and the reading clerks refer to members elect as last name of state when needed. the Party could be added in some situations if clarity is needed i/e/ "Republican Name of State" Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

i think McCarthy (R-CA) would make the article more concise given how many different members are being mentioned Griffindaly (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this wording. I saw it earlier and find it the easiest. Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi all -- I believe its a wikipedia standard to just link to another article a single time within an article. Subsequent references to the same article are preferred to be unlinked. I see the same names linked continually on this page. Should that get some cleanup? 209.17.40.39 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe currently we're not following that standard because this article is nothing but names at the moment, so readers would get confused without a couple repeated links. But yes, we should probably reduce some links to just last names. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

In some cases it's fine to link names multiple times, especially in tables/lists. I wouldn't worry about strictly following the "link once" principle yet. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Murray's current status in the presidential succession

Perhaps it's too trivial to add. But while the Speakership remains vacant, Senator Patty Murray (as president pro-tempore of the US Senate) is second-in-line to the US presidential powers & duties. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is already reflected in the page United States presidential line of succession. X5163x (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

While interesting, I'm not sure where in the article we would add this. Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Could potentially be added in a sentence to the "Process and conventions" section. Super Goku V (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

9th vote total should be 432

Would a tablemeister like to change this? NapoliRoma (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Done 2604:4080:13F8:8320:41C7:289E:2E50:8698 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Meh, wikitables can be hard to understand and I don't fault someone for asking someone else to update them. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry i didn't realise that. I thought they're just hesitating for some reason, so... —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I would have sorted it out myself, but I figured there were other editors currently hacking on the tables in real time, so I got a bit lazy :-/.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Trump in infobox

Should Trump be added to the infobox? There has been some edit warring about this. I disagree with adding him to the infobox, as he is not a major candidate and has only had 1 vote. Natg 19 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I feel having the infobox only show the latest vote is a form of recentism. I think a different standard of inclusion should be used - for example, being officially nominated for at least one round, and receiving at least 4 votes (which is 20% of the Anti-McCarthy faction). We could also include vote counts from different ballots, similar to what's in place here. This could be the first round, the last round of each day, and whichever round ends up electing a speaker. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Herbfur I am okay with only showing the most recent round, but I agree with discussion in a previous section, that there should be a minimum of 5 votes or so to be added to the infobox. Natg 19 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

See my comments at #Second/latest round votes above. We should definitely not include more than first/latest round votes as we do in every multi-round vote. We don't even know how many days it will last. I don't know how did the Canada article went the other way. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Members? or Members-elect?

In one of the previous versions of this article, the term "members-elect" was used instead of "members", since technically-speaking, none of the politicians have been sworn in. There is also an explanatory note about this. However, it seems like this change was reverted at some point, and the article consistently uses "members". Which one should we be using? Natg 19 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe it should be members-elect. They are not members of the House until they are sworn in by the speaker. Reliable sources are not being consistent about this though so we should probably talk about it. Here is a document from the House Parliamentarian explaining the difference between members and members-elect. -- Jfhutson (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Are the members who were re-elected members still? KD0710 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

i do not believe so as their previous term has elapsed and they haven't yet been sworn in. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That's correct. The 20th amendment says terms end at noon on the 3rd. -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

And it also says that the terms of the successors begin at noon on the 3rd. So far, every person not sworn in at noon on January 3rd (such as Congress starting on a different day) since the adoption of the amendment is considered to have taken office at noon on January 3rd. Muhibm0307 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per the Constitution all members of Congress are in office, but they can't do any work other than vote on a Speaker over and over until they are able to be sworn in. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the 20th amendment says their terms started, they are not members, but members-elect. That is the only way I can make sense of this, which appears to be what is being followed on the House floor and at least some reliable sources. -- Jfhutson (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, they are both members and members-elect. The constitution considers them as members as of noon on 3 January, while the House of Representatives considers them members-elect. I don't know if we need to be consistent on this or not, but we can simply follow what the media uses. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Trump in Infobox

What exactly makes Trump worthy of being singled out in the info box, and not included in "others"? He has recipes less than 1 percent of votes, and received the same amount of votes as Lee Zeldon and Jim Banks, who are group into "others". Personally believe only those with serious support should have individual counts. Scarecrow1000 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Absent voters pt 2

There was consensus to include absent members in the main table, but now they have been separated out. This should be undone. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Absent Voters

Being absent from a vote is not a vote and should not be included in the charts. It’s not the same thing as a “present” vote even though it has a similar effect. KD0710 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@KD0710: being absent isn't a "vote" but it makes more sense to include it in charts than not. "Present" is not a vote either; it doesn't count towards the vote total. Both of them affect the outcome though (by lowering the vote total) and are reported by reliable sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree - this problem is only going to get worse if this continues into more days. It was fine when it was just Buck, but now absences are obscuring the information in the table from it's original point. The only noteworthy votes are the ones against their party's nominee. Separating the tables provides this information in a more clear way. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Being present IS a vote. You are right that it doesn’t count toward the total but they are voting on the record as present. The absentee member should be handled the same as the other absentee seat. KD0710 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No. The absent member was not absent in all rounds and therefore it makes sense to include the fact that they were absent in some rounds but not others in the tables, to make it more obvious why the numbers add up in the way they do. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That's alright to add Buck. but the accompanying prose need to be revamped to make sense and I'm not sure how to. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to update that. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with KD0710 here. Being absent is not a vote, and should not be included in "vote tables". The prose line should note this, but this should be handled the same as the empty seat. Natg 19 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How does it make our article more understandable or useful to our readers to exclude absences from the tables? Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The "voted for party's nominee" table should not be updated. If necessary, we could add explanatory notes to the "summary" table to say that a member was absent, but I don't find this necessary. Information about his absence is already in the prose about the vote. Natg 19 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it definitely shouldn't say "voted for their party's nominee in every ballot except those noted here". That implies that they did in fact vote, which Buck didn't in vote 9. 107.1.50.202 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Ken Buck did not vote for his party's nominee in round 9, and the table would indicate that. If anything, excluding him from the table implies he did vote for McCarthy in round 9, when he actually didn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Did he “vote for his party’s nominee in every ballot?” No, so he should be on the list. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Buck had to make just one vote to make our life marginally easier and he bungled that. What a shame! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

To be fair he's probably going to miss this round as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You can add a note. He does not need to be on a vote table when he did not in fact vote. Save the space, don’t keep adding people if they should miss votes. KD0710 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

He did not vote for his party's nominee in that round, though! Not including him in the table implies he did. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Then add a note! KD0710 (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"All House members of the 118th United States Congress voted for their party's nominee in every ballot except those noted here" is a factually incorrect statement if Buck is not in the table. Either change the wording or add a note. I would myself, but I don't have any sources and I don't feel like adding unsourced information about a living person to a Wikipedia article, sorry. casualdejekyll 22:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Since this is a House vote, you can link to the house.gov 's records or I'm pretty sure some news media certainly covered it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/04/us/politics/house-speaker-vote-tally.html is a good source; I added it but it got removed for some reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The good old NYT that's RS but always behind the paywall for me. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit frustrating. I wish they were added to the Wikipedia Library. Anyway, I can confirm that the page tracks all the speaker votes by every member and is a decent source on the topic. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed the wording to better fit the explanation of the chart for the time being. Should a consensus be met that contradicts this, it can be changed. KD0710 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I updated the wording to be this: All House members of the 118th United States Congress who cast a vote, voted for their party's nominee in every ballot except those noted here. Ken Buck of Colorado, who had been a McCarthy supporter, was absent from the 9th ballot.. I continue to maintain the stance that his absence should not be added to this chart.

Why not include this in the table, if we need to separately note it? That's quite silly. The whole point of having a table is that it's more convenient for our readers to display this information in such a manner than in prose. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Because there was no vote? He did not cast a vote, and being absent is not a vote. He did not change his vote to Donalds or anyone else, and he did not abstain from voting. His absence should be treated separately. Natg 19 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We can repurpose the table, nothing stopping from that. House itself, for example, counts Not Voting separately in its records. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he didn't cast a vote doesn't mean he shouldn't be in the table though? The table is there to serve our readers. How does not including him in the table serve our readers better? No one here has been able to give a compelling case for that. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly second Elli’s question. How does excluding him from the chart help readers? ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

While it's not considered a vote in a formal, parliamentary sense, it does have an effect on the outcome such that it would be more informative than not to include it in the table. — chrs || talk 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

it’s likely additional members will start being absent moving forward. perhaps an additional table could be added listing Members Not Voting showing the rounds they did vote in and for whom, then which rounds they missed? Griffindaly (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why two tables, when one will suffice? Those tables would be conveying the same exact information and would be separate for no reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I realize this discussion has kind of moved on, but the two tables proposed certainly do not convey the same information. One is a list of members who affirmatively opposed or declined to support their party's nominee, and were part of a faction that led to a historically lengthy Speaker's election. That is notable. The other is a group of members who had to be absent for medical procedures, the birth of a child, or other mundane reasons, which is something that happens on practically every House vote, even extremely important ones. That is perhaps notable in the context of this extremely close election, but it's considerably less notable than the actual holdouts/rebels. SS451 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

They don't convey the same information. The former would show votes against the party's nominee. Adding absences obscures this, and would be better presented in a separate table. This problem will only grow worse if votes continue into more days. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, Buck was just absent from the 10th vote, and there is still no clarity as to why he isn’t listed. I think we should move to adding him to the list unless anyone would like to explain how his inclusion would detract from the article. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like there's general agreement to include and no policy-based reason to exclude. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like there is agreement against my position. But my position is that the table is for members/members-elect who voted against their party nominee (or changed positions to abstention) which Buck did not do. Natg 19 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

12th Ballot

Would somebody fix up the tallies? I've tried but kept getting edit-conflicted. A few newbies are messing up the numbers. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there's controversy about Buck's absence. I doubt this will be resolved until the official announcement of the tallies from the Clerk. This is exactly why we shouldn't be doing live tallies though. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

CNN is showing a live tally of 213-211-4-3, but NPR and (I presume other sites) mentions that McCarthy earned 214 votes. Agree with the comment on the live tallies. Natg 19 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like NPR presented the official tallies which is 213 McCarthy, 211 Jeffries. Natg 19 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for this page. There's too many newbies & IPs changing vote tallies, every few seconds. It's creating confusion & making editing the page, difficult. We should be waiting until the official tally is announced, per ballot. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Colour change on current vote is incredibly hard to read

Someone changed the colour to this hot pink/red. It is incredibly difficult to read on the eyes and please go back to the greyscale or softer tones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.46.197 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Presidential succession

I find the sentence on presidential succession slightly confusing. Suggesting that Patty Murray is second in line to the presidency is strange. Following Biden, Harris is next in line for the presidency. I guess it depends on if you put more weight on the in line part of the sentence (Harris is first in line, Murray is second in line) In my mind, Harris is second in line and Murray is third in line behind the sitting president. I didn't want to boldly change the sentence without seeing if anybody else felt as if that section was vague. Bkissin (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you consider "in line". "In line" in my view refers to the line of people after the current president. You can edit the sentence to make it clearer, if it is unclear to you. Natg 19 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the current wording of after Vice President Kamala Harris is the best compromise around clarity. That is a lot better! Bkissin (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Biden is the US president, so he can't be first in line for an office he already holds. Just like King Charles III of the United Kingdom, can't 'also' be the heir-apparent to the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's like if you're at an amusement park and there's a ride that you can only use one-at-a-time. The POTUS ride. Biden is on the ride right now, with Harris first in line, Murray second in line, etc. The eventual speaker doesn't have to go to the end of the line when elected, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Absent vs McCarthy opponents

We can't keep continuing to grow the Vote by members table with absences. I think the original idea of this section was to track the so-called "Never Kevin" voters. Adding absences obscures this section. I've pulled out the members who missed votes and placed them in their own separate table, as they are otherwise not noteworthy in actively voting against their party's nominee. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree, absent members are not notable in this context but those who were present on the floor and did not vote for their party's nominee are. I'm a little confused about the current state of the page though, I was about to make a similar edit, thought it had already been made, but now the page has the absent members crammed in with the holdouts. SS451 (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but there was rough consensus to incorporate absences in the "vote by members" table in the talk section above: #Absent Voters. Natg 19 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

as a viewer of this page and not an editor I find it much more useful to separate the absent votes out.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You can go back and read the old discussion, so we don’t have to repeat ourselves. If you disagree with anything said there, we can talk about that. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll copy/paste what I said above in response to Elli's claim that two separate tables (one of McCarthy opponents and one of absent members) would be conveying the exact same information: The two tables proposed certainly do not convey the same information. One is a list of members who affirmatively opposed or declined to support their party's nominee, and were part of a faction that led to a historically lengthy Speaker's election. That is notable. The other is a group of members who had to be absent for medical procedures, the birth of a child, or other mundane reasons, which is something that happens on practically every House vote, even extremely important ones. That is perhaps notable in the context of this extremely close election, but it's considerably less notable than the actual holdouts/rebels. SS451 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I support splitting out, however the blurb “All House members of the 118th Congress voted for their party's nominee in every ballot except those noted here” must be changed, as that is not accurate if they are separated out. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Rename the table to clarify votes against party nominees. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to have two separate tables, especially a second table that is currently three rows long. The current table is not super long. It might be clearer to group all absent + present votes together at the bottom, similar to the Summary table, but there isn't a need to split into two small tables. If the intent of the table is to show all voters who did not vote their party's official nomination for any reason, then it's sufficient rationale to include the absences. It's also a bit ridiculous imo to separate them out to create such a short table. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why we need the absent voters listed at all, they are not particularly notable. Delete them, change the wording of the table introduction blurb to the following: "All House members of the 118th Congress who were present on the floor voted for their party's nominee in every ballot except those noted here." That also covers Spartz, who was present on the floor but did not vote for McCarthy in several rounds. SS451 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

They are notable because they change the number of votes needed to reach majority. It is notable that the majority threshold has changed from 218 to 216, and that has happened partially through absent voters. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree they may be notable, but I find that this misrepresents the purpose of the table. Should this table show Republican defectors? or just show non "normal" cases? I believe this table started out to show Republican defectors and has morphed into something else. Natg 19 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The threshold itself is notable; the individual members who are absent are not, since their reasons for being absent have nothing to do with the ongoing fight and they were voting with their party along with 95% of their colleagues. SS451 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If the scope of the table has changed over time as the situation develops, that's not a bad thing — it's simply adaption to the situation. The purpose of the table needn't be static to what it first was, and it is fine if the table has expanded to include the absent votes. Who is absent is indeed a consideration, particularly since a briefly missing Democrat affects the threshold but not McCarthy's tally; it's true that their reasons aren't necessarily important, but who is gone and from where they're missing is more so. The table very much works as a summary of any representative who didn't cast a vote with their nomination, and the description can simply more explicitly state in that absent members are also included. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what would be helpful. The useful purpose of such a table (particularly as we'll soon be moving out of the documentation of an active event) is to list the representatives who played a notable part in this deadlock. That's the rebel faction, not a few members who happened to miss a few ballots because they had other commitments. Note that even if each of the absent members had been present and voting for each ballot, there would still be no Speaker--and that's because of the rebels. When the story of this event is told, the absent members will play little role in it; even currently, the volume of coverage directed at each of the rebels is many multiples of the coverage directed at all of the absent members combined, because everyone understands that the absent members aren't holding things up. SS451 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@SS451 but their party is. 108.20.182.207 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

5% Rule for Infobox

We need a consensus on the rules for adding a candidate for the infobox. My suggestion is that we keep the 5% rule for the infobox, meaning that if a candidate has less than 5% of the vote for the FIRST AND LATEST ROUNDS, we keep them in the Others section. Wikipedia is not a Magazine, and we shouldn’t just randomly put people in the infobox based on popularity.

Also, the reason I think we should use percentage versus numbers is that the number of votes is always changing, so we could see more present/absent votes ahead. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

+1: Per my comments at #Adding 'others' to the infobox & #Add Hern to infobox above. To anyone wondering about how much is 5%; as of now, with 432 votes cast, 5% is 21.6 ≈ 22. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good argument against this. I would say three votes in the most recent ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Esolo5002: This is the problem. 3 is not any significance, and what about the first ballot? 3 ≈ 0.7% of the total vote. We have all statistical data in the article. The infobox isn’t the article. @CX Zoom:Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally disagree at the moment, I think that while the vote is still occurring the infobox should show the most recent ballot but that once the vote has ended it should show with I think a 3% vote to show Jeffries and Donalds on it. The main reason I think that they should show up is because of the hold outs. Or we should just have the final ballot in the infobox after the vote has finished and have the most recent in the infobox until it has ended. CIN I&II (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CIN I&II: See that is more reasonable and obviously makes sense. But come on, regardless Donald Trump, with 1 vote does not belong in the Infobox regardless of the round or his popularity.Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bbraxtonlee: I mean he currently he has one vote from Matt Gaetz and so he would be in the infobox solely from that he has that as of the most recent ballot under my criteria, but in the future considering he has no real chance of becoming speaker I wouldn't support him in the infobox after he has no more votes for speaker (so I think he should be in the infobox until he has no votes for speaker in which he should be in the other category). CIN I&II (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CIN I&II: So what you are saying is that in the latest round, we should put everyone. Then once the speakership election is complete, we should use a 3% rule? Bbraxtonlee (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I think on it CIN I&II (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CIN I&II I agree. How should we put consensus on it? Bbraxtonlee (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should make a new section possibly within this section on this idea and then have it be by consensus with the 3% instead and latest. Because then we can establish it by the rule that then the people who blocked it can be on there, and maybe we can later set some kind of consistency on how many ballots they were on to qualify so that we can get a more succinct infobox in case some other candidate emerges randomly. CIN I&II (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CIN I&II Okay. Why don't you start it because it was your idea and then we can go from there. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree expect for FIRST AND LATEST which may pose a problem down the road. There could be a speaker elected or a significant candidate later who was not one of the candidates to receive +5% of the votes in the first round. I'm hesitant to set that rule right now.

MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion was to have a candidate kept in the "Others" section if they had less than 5% in the FIRST and LATEST. So, if they have more than 5% in the FIRST or more than 5% in the LATEST, they are shown separately in the infobox. It's De Morgan's laws, (not A) and (not B) = not (A or B)

Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, 5 votes is a much better threshold than 5%, since that’s the number required to block McCarthy’s speakership. The relevance of the 5% rule in a contingent election is not clear anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat that is the point of this talk. We need some rule for the infobox because right now its a free for all. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we have already had this discussion and 5 votes was agreed upon as the threshold. Really this article needs to be semi-protected, otherwise any rules agreed upon here will be drowned out by a flood of well-meaning new editors with no understanding of policy or consensus. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Day four (January 6): Thirteenth ballot

Scalise proposed the motion.

Is this Steve Scalise of Louisiana? No word of him in the given source. ElLutzo (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, actually, it is in the source, but not in the web.archive.org-pinpoint from 2023-01-06 20:43:08 UTC. ElLutzo (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Updated. ElLutzo (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Others" party in infobox

I've noticed that in the "Others" section of the infobox, the party it shows is Republican. However, in the 2021 Speaker election article, there isn't any party attributed to the Other votes, even though both were for Democrats. Which one should it be here? Rockin (Talk) 20:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it for consistency. As far as I know, the few articles we have on U.S. House of Representatives Speaker elections all refrain from putting a party in the "Others" box. — Coolperson177 (message | about me) 21:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Included in the "Others" section of the infobox in the other articles are combined votes cast for individuals other than the conference or caucus nominee, and thus may be a mix of Democrat and Republican votes. That is why there isn't a party attribution in the Other votes section. It is excluded for consistency sake when all the votes for others were solely Democrat or Republican votes. Drdpw (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible Note for “Day four (January 6)”?

In section called “=== Day four (January 6) ===“ should there be a note about today [Friday, January 6, 2023] being two years since (2 years since) the “January 6 United States Capitol attack”?

Sroth0616 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Though interesting, not directly relevant to this topic. Natg 19 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Natg19, Thank you for your comment. I understand the relevance (or irrelevance) of the note. Would it [the note] be worth adding if a speaker is elected in the fourteenth attempt [tonight]? Sroth0616 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, but still tangential to the subject IMO. Drdpw (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Drdpw,

Thank you for your comment.

What do you mean by “...subject IMO”?

Sroth0616 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear I am replying to myself. Isn’t the ‘ongoing saga’ that [timestamp] continues to this day (Friday, January 6th, 2023) arguably the most important thing the U.S. House of Representatives has dealt with since my initial talk comment?

Sroth0616 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

215

Matt and lauren voted present making it 215 and thus Macarthy Won! Legobro99 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

217 votes were needed out of 432 Nakayama12345 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential map of districts by member vote

At some point, should we add some maps to this page to show the districts of who voted for whom in some of the ballots? I think it would be a good addition to the page, but I think it should wait until after a speaker is elected. I suggest we add a map showing the votes on only the first and final ballots. This would show the initial group of McCarthy detractors and who voted in what way for whoever actually becomes speaker. Thoughts? OutlawRun (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be hard to depict that with how many ballots there are, but if someone makes one for each ballot and implements it (which would be a feat to do) then I would be for it. CIN I&II (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it is only necessary to show the first and last ballots, similar to how the infobox shows the first and last ballots. I don't know if the maps should go in the infobox or in the sections of their respective votes. Having a map for every vote would clutter up the page a bit too much and would be rather unnecessary given how similar a lot of the votes are. We should definitely get a consensus on this, though. OutlawRun (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

January 7th

A new day is in a few minutes, please update the 15th vote into a new day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6BCC:1200:5838:789C:3C3D:C75A (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We could likely put it below multiple day headers?, right MCUSRAP (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That would confuse people, I say we put the vote on the day it finishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6BCC:1200:5838:789C:3C3D:C75A (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The session of congress began on 6th January, so it should all be under the 6th January. 158.140.192.4 (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We should wait until the vote concludes until changing to prevent edit wars. X5163x (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough MCUSRAP (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Current template

I don't think {{Current election}} template was intended for this type of event. Should just be {{current}} Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The specific concerns mentioned in the current election template are really not applicable to this kind of proceeding, where all voting is occurring publicly and there is no significant danger of unreliable media reports mischaracterizing the current state of play. SS451 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I have visited this forum. But, I find it excellent in giving me the daily specifics of the speaker of the house election. Much better than any other source. Great work!! 70.162.204.239 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Following the conclusion of the election, is it appropriate to remove the template? MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Order of summary table

I just wanted to establish quickly if there's a consensus for the ordering of the "Summary" table. It was previously in order they were introduced to the ballot, but it was changed twice: to move more recent persons receiving votes toward the top by @Misterblue28:, at which point I changed it back, and now by to most votes on any ballot by @Tim Parenti:. (Pings are just to notify.) I don't have a particular strong preference, but I wondering if we could get a formal consensus on how the table should be ordered so we don't keep changing the order back and forth? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Per 1924 Democratic National Convention and other articles which use summary tables, the established consensus seems to be that the eventual winner goes at the top, and the rest should be ordered by how many votes they received on the first ballot, with tiebreakers being second ballot, third ballot etc. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There did not seem to be any clear narrative order to my eyes, so I introduced one that's likely to continue make a reasonable amount of narrative sense as the process continues and eventually concludes. I don't have a particularly strong preference, though, as long as the order is clearly documented for future editors. If there is precedent elsewhere, then I'm for that, but it should be made explicit. --Tim Parenti (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The order introduced seems like the best way for now. Once they pick a speaker, it should be reordered in the manner Devonian Wombat suggests. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice, nice, thanks all (and anyone who may or may not reply after this). I just wanted to make sure we got a clear one together in case this keep going on and other orders possibly arise. And, no worries, Tim Parenti, your edit did make me go "hrm, yeah, maybe this should be clearer". I do also think the current one makes sense, and then reordered as necessary once this is over. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've formalized this consensus in the table note, and clarified the tiebreaker I used. --Tim Parenti (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How about a graph alongside the summary table? Uwappa (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaker ballot

Date	January 3			January 4			January 5					January 6
Ballot	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	11th	12th	13th	14th	15th
Majority	218			217								216	217		215
Kevin McCarthy	203		202	201					200			213	214	216	216
Hakeem Jeffries	212											211	212
Andy Biggs	10													2
Jim Jordan	6	19	20									4	6	2
Byron Donalds	1			20			19	17		13	12
Kevin Hern								2	3	7		3
Donald Trump							1				1
Jim Banks	1
Lee Zeldin	1
Total	434			433					432			431	432		428
Present				1										2	6
Not voting									1			3	2

For now I would say "not yet". The chart is dominated by the 200+ votes for Jeffries and McCarthy obscuring the more interesting small numbers of the others. If one of the competition against McCarthy really starts to take off (e.g. by dramatically starting to increase votes over the next few rounds) and McCarthy dropping substantially, the graph might start to make more sense. But as is now, I do not see what information / insight it adds. Arnoutf (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

+1: The summary table is sufficient. People can easily read and interpret that. It is also more accessible to people with color-blindness. I do not see what additional insight is added with this tall graph. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Graph, table and text serve different purposes. Together they provide quick insight, precision and political history.

1. The graph offers a quick visual description of the pecularities of this election process. It took 15 rounds to elect a speaker from only two main candidates, both close to majority from the start. In round 4 two other candidates swapped 20 votes. From ballot 12 onwards one main candidate started gaining extra votes and took the lead as support for other candidates declined. In round 15 a speaker was elected with only the two main candidates receiving votes as the number of votes required for a majority decreased.
2. The table gives detailed numbers for each ballot per candidate. In ballot 4 Jordan lost all his 20 votes and Donalds gained 20. In rounds 7, 8 and 11 Trump received one vote. Jordan made a slight comeback in round 12 with 4 votes as McCarty jumped from 200 to 213 votes and Jeffries lost one vote. In round 15 McCarthy maintained 216 votes as the number of votes required for a majority dropped to 215 with 6 'present'.
3. The text can describe the stories behind the numbers, political history. Why did it take 15 rounds to select a speaker? Why were there so many Republican candidates? How can Donald Trump be nominated for speaker? Why did Jeffries lose a vote in round 12? How can the number required for a majority decrease? Why 6 'present' in the final ballot? What made McCarthy win?

Graph, table and text complement each other, serve different purposes and different type of readers. Some readers prefer a graph, others like a table with numbers or text that describes political history. Uwappa (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead too long

Per MOS:LEAD, including MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead is far too long and detailed, and has too many paragraphs. It needs to be substantially trimmed to include only the most important points and remove some of the unnecessary play-by-play. This article can easily be summed up nicely in two lead paragraphs; three max. Stoarm (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Splitting Article

The article is starting to become a little long. Is there any support for splitting off from the article the 'Vote for the Speaker' section commencing January 3rd? Mrodowicz (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this last night. Personally I don't think a split would be the best option, but I was thinking maybe the vote tables for each ballot could be condensed by day. For instance, day 1 would have one single table for ballots 1-3, day 2 would have one single table for ballots 4-6, and so on. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Herbfur: something like this table below maybe?

2023 election for speaker (first three ballots)

Party		Candidate	1st ballot		2nd ballot		3rd ballot
			Votes	%	Votes	%	Votes	%
	Democratic	Hakeem Jeffries (NY 8)	212	48.8%	212	48.8%	212	48.8%
	Republican	Kevin McCarthy (CA 20)	203	46.8%	203	46.8%	202	46.5%
	Republican	Jim Jordan (OH 4)	6	1.4%	19	4.4%	20	4.6%
	Republican	Andy Biggs (AZ 5)	10	2.3%	0	0%	0	0%
	Republican	Jim Banks (IN 3)	1	0.2%	0	0%	0	0%
	Republican	Byron Donalds (FL 19)	1	0.2%	0	0%	0	0%
	Republican	Lee Zeldin	1	0.2%	0	0%	0	0%
Total votes			434	100%	434	100%	434	100%
Voted needed			218	>50%	218	>50%	218	>50%

Thrakkx (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just lodging support for this concept of a combined ballots-per-day table. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what I had in mind, looks good! Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't need to be split, it needs to be trimmed of WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This... is a recent event. How does anything here violate RECENTISM? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the idea of this article needing to be split comes from, it only has about 15,000 characters, less than one-third of the size recommended for a split in WP:SPLITTING. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere near the size necessary to split. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Vote table

The vote table should reflect that the vote completed on January 7 (Aricmfergie (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A technicality like that is really not important to the reader. Plus, it's mentioned literally a few sentences up. Thrakkx (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

But what does it hurt? Some readers might find it odd that it is not reflected in the table. Either someone should edit the column header to reflect the two-day nature of the vote, or there should be a footnote directly in the table. Perhaps a footnote might potentially be less disruptive?--MCUSRAP (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A footnote would be the least disruptive way to go. While I would like the indication of the 7th to be present, a footnote prevents any further bloat. BWellsOdyssey (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on Infobox

The current idea that was proposed and agreed upon in the 5% section to lower it to 3% and to display the latest vote in the infobox until there is a speaker elected before then switching to the 3% rule about displaying a candidate. CIN I&II (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, we should wait until the official tally is announced per ballot, before updating the page. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that it is over we should do consensus on it with the 3% rule. CIN I&II (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Donalds photo caption

The caption under Bryon Donalds' photo states that he was nominated on the first ballot as well as the fourth through eleventh. He received votes on the first ballot, but he was not formally nominated on that ballot. I'm not sure if this is an important enough distinction to need clarification. 2600:1700:C370:5910:30F6:B09F:8CA0:F094 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

New version of the table

I undid the new version of the table by @Thrakkx for multiple reasons. Firstly, it became more confusing the party standing of the people who were voted for. Secondly, it's important to keep David Trone in the table because his lack of voting for Jeffries briefly reduced the majority needed. Further it's NPOV to call the table "Republican Hardliners" as that is inserting a viewpoint on to the people who are voting, who voted what they did for various different reasons. I'm fine with re-coloring the table in some way, but the coloring should be picked so that party affiliation is still notable. I'd also suggest keeping names in the table so that it's easier to read. The New York Times table you reference is more "pretty" but it's not more understandable. Ergzay (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaker of the Pub?

A few days ago, Union Pub, which is close to Capitol Hill, initiated a Speaker of the Pub special for $218 because 218 was the minimum vote requirement (source: https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/3801277-dc-bar-offers-218-special-to-become-speaker-of-the-pub-amid-house-drama/). Is that notable enough for this article? PiratePablo (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if bars across the entirety of DC did that, sure. Just one bar? No. Thrakkx (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. PiratePablo (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Policy for judging notability is WP:NOTEWORTHY. Eruditess (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Get these absentees out of the table

This discussion has kind of popped up and petered out a couple of times, but I'm going to keep at it. Buck, Hunt, and Trone are not particularly notable in the context of this contested Speaker election. At most, they should be mentioned in a note or separate sentence, but they should not be in the "Votes cast by members" table and they should not be in a separate dedicated table either. The "Votes cast by members" table is most useful, by far, as a record of members who opposed or refused to support their own party's nominee for Speaker, which is unusual in general, especially unusual in their large absolute numbers and their share of the majority caucus, and of course was the primary reason that this Speaker election became historically unusual. By contrast, absences of a small number of members of a 435-member body, even on very important votes, are routine and not notable to the point where they should be treated equivalently to a dissenting faction.

Here's what I propose specifically:

1. Delete them from the "Votes cast by members" table

2. Modify the blurb that appears before the table to the following: "All House members of the 118th Congress who were present on the floor voted for their party's nominee on every ballot except as noted here."

3. Modify notes d, e, and f (which are already linked from the "Speaker Ballot" table) to give each of their full names and wikilinks and maybe add the specific ballots they were absent for.

Let's consense! SS451 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You haven't made a point that wasn't made in the previous discussion. Removing the absences from the table does not help make the table or article more clear/informative, while including them does, so there is no reason to remove them. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the most recent discussion--on January 6--resulted in a consensus to remove the absentees from the table. Then the discussion moved on to where to note them and was not resolved. So now I'm proposing a resolution. Your previous argument that the absentees are "the same" as McCarthy opponents is simply wrong--no reliable sources are treating them that way, and the opponents have gotten much more coverage and analysis than the absentees. You were right that it would be confusing to break the absentees out into a separate table, but the solution is simple: no table for them. SS451 (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what my argument was and you know it. There also was not any established consensus from the discussion that took place on January 6.

Obviously someone being absent and someone voting against McCarthy are not the same, but they both impact the vote total in each round. You still have not explained how removing them at all benefits our readers. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The benefit to the readers is creating a simple list of members of the rebel faction, uncluttered by other members who played no role in the central conflict that led to this election going 15 ballots. If you don't care about the notability of individual members' part in the contest, you could just have a table that listed all 435 members and encouraged the reader to go diving for which ones voted against their party based on the color-coded votes, but that would also obscure, rather than promote, understanding of what happened.

The secondary benefit of a table with only opponents is that it tells a visual story of how the election changed by showing the dwindling number of holdouts over the final four ballots. But again, including the absentees clutters that picture to no useful purpose, adding three members who supported their respective conferences' majorities, but who visually make it look like McCarthy was incurring slightly offsetting losses of support on ballots 9-13. In fact he was stable from 9-11 and then picked up increasing support and acquiescence beginning on ballot 12.

On the Wiki process points: I genuinely didn't mean to mischaracterize your position, only summarize where we differed. If I failed in that, I apologize. And there was just as much consensus to get rid of the absentees on January 6 as there was to include them on January 5. SS451 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why this list should just be of the rebel faction, though. If a Dem voted for someone other than Jeffries, we would've almost certainly included them, even though they would not have been one of the rebels. It's a list of anyone whose voting pattern was anything other than fully party-line the entire time (because including such a table with those members as well would be excessively long and redundant). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that if there had been Democrats not voting for Jeffries, we should include them in the table. But actively voting against the party candidate is different from being absent due to medical reasons. These representatives didn't freely choose to be absent, none of the absences changed the outcome of a ballot, they're not what made the whole process historic, and they don't really tell the reader anything interesting about the absent representatives. They are a technical detail. It's noteworthy which representatives chose to vote against their party candidate, and how they voted instead. Involuntary absences aren't noteworthy. It's true that the reader needs to know about them to fully understand the numbers, but the numbers are given in the Summary of the votes table (where the absences are explained in footnotes), not in the Votes cast by members table. Of course, only three of 24 table rows are about absent representatives, so keeping them doesn't hurt much. But they are distracting rather than helpful. On balance, I think it makes more sense to remove them. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Elli, there is no clear benefit for our readers in omitting the absent voters. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion on January 6th didn't establish a clear consensus to remove the absent votes, particularly as there wasn't a strong argument presented as to why they should be removed. Consensus isn't established by raw WP:STRAWPOLL. There is no benefit in removing the absent voters, particularly given the thin margin and the prose remarking that one of the adjournments was motivated by a desire to allow the two absent Republicans to return. I also remain unconvinced that it is cluttering when it is three rows and the table is 24 rows overall. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the "leave them in" standpoint. Following the election via Swedish media, I found it hard to understand how the bar for McCarthy's election moved up/down. The tables, with absentees marked, helped explain.

Please also note that parlamentarian procedural rules vary vastly between countries. Again, the Swedish parliament would have handled absentees by parlamentary paring, voiding all importance of an absentee. Leaving the entries in clarifies that such is not the case in the US setting.

Thanks to all who have contributed on this article, it is really appreciated! OJH (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree the absentees belong in the table. It helps in understanding why the target number changed from ballot to ballot. If they didn't matter, McCarthy wouldn't have called Hunt and Buck to return to DC for the vote on the night of Jan. 6. The absences may be a "technical detail," but they're part of providing the full picture of what was going on with the voting. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I do wonder if it might help some of these concerns if the table was reordered, perhaps? To have the absences listed at the bottom of the table together in a group? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Good idea @TenTonParasol! Separate headers before the first and second groups might also be useful, eg "Republicans Representatives dissenting or abstaining for one or more votes" and "Representatives of both parties absent for one or more votes". OJH (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Separating absent from voting representatives is a good idea. As suggested by OJH, I added a row "Representatives of both parties absent for one or more votes". I added class="sortbottom" to the four bottom rows to keep them in place when the user re-sorts the table. I guess that's OK, but maybe there are better solutions... — Chrisahn (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

At what point does this just become two tables then? There seem to be two ways to look at this: 1) The table should show the renegade Republicans only because that's the important narrative to follow here or 2) The table should show all of the representatives who didn't vote for their caucus' nominee because that illuminates the election proceedings and how the winning candidate gets the requisite number of votes for a given round of balloting. I'd also note that the second option doesn't obscure the first option's goal, it just provides a fuller picture of what's happening in each round of voting. Trying to subdivide the table unnecessarily complicates things to my eye. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I initially thought about the subdivision myself before proposing, but when I mocked it up, I thought that the subdivision made it unnecessarily complicated as well, so I took it back out before making the proposal. (Also, to reiterate what I've said before: I personally feel a second table is rather silly because it'd be three rows with identical columns as the prior table.) That said, I don't feel super strongly about the header row other than if there is going to be one, it should be styled as such. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I now made the separating row look like a header row. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tcr25: Yes, it's almost like two separate tables. Or maybe a table with a few rows that are just footnotes. :-) I think it's a reasonable compromise (although I still think simply removing the absent representatives makes more sense). – Regarding "the second option doesn't obscure the first option's goal": Maybe these additional three rows don't obscure the main information, but they distract from it. Historians and political scientists will still write about this election in ten or twenty years, and I'm pretty sure they'll hardly talk about the absent representatives, because they simply aren't relevant or interesting. What's interesting is who voted against McCarthy, as well as when and why they changed their minds. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Time will tell what's judged to be important (and we may revisit this all sooner rather than later given that it's not implausible that we'll have at least one more speaker election before the end of the 118th Congress), but I still see noting the absences in the table as a valuable part of informing the process more than distracting from anything. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I do think this (the example helpfully created below) is definitely better than the current version of the table. Makes it easier to see the group of representatives who actually rebelled as a group and, as I said above, to track the changing nature of the election over the course of the ballots, showing how it started with a large group of holdouts that grew slightly over ballots 3 and 4, held steady until ballot 11, then rapidly shrank from 12-15. SS451 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A few people have weighed in on the table created as an example below, which includes everyone including the absentees but separates them into different sections with a header in between. I think it's an improvement. What do other editors, particularly those who oppose removing the absentees completely, think? SS451 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with it being an improvement. Alphabetical sorting is fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Example reordering

Member Party District Ballot vote cast January 3 January 4 January 5 January 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Andy Biggs Republican AZ 5 Biggs Jordan Donalds Hern Jordan present Dan Bishop Republican NC 8 Biggs Jordan Donalds McCarthy Lauren Boebert Republican CO 3 Jordan Donalds Hern Jordan present Josh Brecheen Republican OK 2 Banks Jordan Donalds Hern McCarthy Michael Cloud Republican TX 27 Jordan Donalds McCarthy Andrew Clyde Republican GA 9 Biggs Jordan Donalds McCarthy Eli Crane Republican AZ 2 Biggs Jordan Donalds Hern Jordan Biggs present Byron Donalds Republican FL 19 McCarthy Jordan Donalds McCarthy Matt Gaetz Republican FL 1 Biggs Jordan Donalds Trump Hern Trump Jordan present Bob Good Republican VA 5 Biggs Jordan Donalds Hern Jordan present Paul Gosar Republican AZ 9 Biggs Jordan Donalds McCarthy Andy Harris Republican MD 1 Zeldin Jordan Donalds Hern Jordan McCarthy Anna Paulina Luna Republican FL 13 Jordan Donalds McCarthy Mary Miller Republican IL 15 Jordan Donalds McCarthy Ralph Norman Republican SC 5 Biggs Jordan Donalds McCarthy Andy Ogles Republican TN 5 Jordan Donalds McCarthy Scott Perry Republican PA 10 Biggs Jordan Donalds McCarthy Matt Rosendale Republican MT 2 Biggs Jordan Donalds Hern Jordan Biggs present Chip Roy Republican TX 21 Donalds Jordan Donalds McCarthy Keith Self Republican TX 3 Jordan Donalds McCarthy Victoria Spartz Republican IN 5 McCarthy present McCarthy Representatives of both parties absent for one or more votes Ken Buck Republican CO 4 McCarthy absent McCarthy Wesley Hunt Republican TX 38 McCarthy absent McCarthy David Trone Democratic MD 6 Jeffries absent Jeffries Notes