Talk:October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election

Do votes for a particular candidate belong in the endorsement section?

I would say no, personally. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No; endorsements and votes are separate. I'm not totally sold on keeping the endorsement tables either, but we can wait until after this is finished to determine the best way to present all the relevant information. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker Voting

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)

 Done see October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election § Votes cast by members. Thanks! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again: Absent votes in table

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)

Include, it's notable as it changes the amount of votes needed for a candidate to win. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Include, we included them last time and we determined that they were worth including. No need to rehash this. KD0710 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the inclusion, I feel that the argument about it changing the denominator on votes needed to win is redundant because it can be included in the vote-by-vote summary but comment I'm aware of the consensus going the other way on the former page and understand it is likely to be included. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Include. No reason to litigate this again from last time. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Include, same rationale as KD0710. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Thoughts on including vote to vacate on the members table?

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
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)

• That is beyond the scope of this article, unnecessary, and already included in a separate article devoted to McCarthy's ouster as speaker. Drdpw (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree KD0710 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Eduardog3000: in case you missed it, there is a more relevant article for this subject, you might find already describes the content you're looking for. See (in my opinion, the poorly named) article: Removal of Kevin McCarthy. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 23:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

After this is finished we'll have a better idea of whether this information would be relevant. Don't support including now but we should not entirely discount the idea. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary yet but if this goes on much longer, it might be worth including at that point. Baconheimian (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Category

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)

How should we handle a McHenry vote

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)

Probably separate. It's not a vote to fill the Speaker position. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Should be covered in this article, of course, but it wouldn't be the same as a speakership vote. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Separate section, after the election section (should not disrupt the flow of the election section at all). Drdpw (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, does the McHenry empowerment scenario need its own section? I know we have a section for the potential bipartisan coalition. Could we rename that to something else about alternative paths/solutions? And then McHenry and bipartisan are subsections?--SDudley (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That would work for now, as neither path has been gone down yet. Drdpw (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

A possible sentence, but where...

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)

Unless multiple reliable sources make note of it, our noting that detail would be OR. Also, as this detail is not being widely noted, it should be considered as trivial and not noteworthy in the article. Drdpw (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, none of them were representatives from OR or OK. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s not what any of this is about… KD0710 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote: Received one or more votes on this ballot without being formally nominated.

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)

This is solved if we begin to break up the days; further, because there is very little overlap between vote recipients, the chart is starting to get really long. I don't understand the ferver some editors have shown to multiple attempts from different editors to break this into different charts on different days like January. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the votes in these cases are really all over the place except for McCarthy and Scalise, we may need to use an "other" category. I've seen many media outlets use this. Several of the Reps seem to be nominating seemingly "random" people as a tactic. Most of the people getting singular votes have never and will never garner any additional support. Perhaps a note that certain people got votes would suffice in this election. I don't think it's time yet, but it might in subsequent rounds. KD0710 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

How about coloring in the cell of someone that was not nominated but received votes. I've created an example below with fewer candidates to show what I mean. On the first ballot, only Jeffries and Jordan are nominated, so the three other. On the second ballot, Scalise is nominated as well, so the cell does not have a fill. I'm not especially committed to the idea and colors being used, it's just a quick idea I thought of. Baconheimian (talk) 13:34, 19 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%

Adding a Map of who the representatives voted for?

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)

Comment they look busy with Jefferies and Jordan in them, maybe take a key from the § Votes cast by members section and only include those not voting for the nominated speaker of the party? Also, for what it's worth, if these maps are original works to which you own the copyright to, feel free to upload them to wikipedia or wikimedia in the future! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 18:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So change the map to show the people who voted for someone other than Jeffries/Jordan? FridaFischer2000 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Table Overload

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 concur. The third table (most recently added) is wholly redundant, and I removed it. Drdpw (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We have all 3 tables in the January one. If we get a lot of votes, like what happened in January, that third table becomes an easy way to see the vote numbers by round when the first table inevitably gets split (especially if some other person gets nominated, e.g. Biggs on the first January ballot). The second table is useful because it tells you specifically who each member voted for, it is not "very similar" to either the first or the third. If the voting ends within a couple of ballots, then we can remove the third table. Unknown-Tree (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If there are many more ballots or a break in balloting, we can consider reinserting the third table. Drdpw (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it makes it consistent with the previous article. And it serves as a good summary of the votes so far. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That election has 15 rounds and is broken up into multiple tables for the rounds. We don’t need a table to summarize a single table. That might change, but is currently unnecessary. KD0710 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The last table summarizes the votes so far. It is not the same as the other two tables in information presented or format. It's also consistent with the previous election article so readers who see that page will easily understand what has happened so far in this election. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is redundant, and will remain so until voting resumes, then there will be multiple tables for the rounds of voting. Drdpw (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we looking at different tables? Because the third one is the only one that summarizes the votes similar to the previous election. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The third table simply repeats the first, and doesn't add sufficient extra to justify itself. Nigej (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The third table denotes who won the conference vote, the first table does not. The first table isn't so much a summary as a complete record of the vote, the third table summarizes the details. It's also note like this is paper, it's not a huge burden having the table there for consistency with the previous election. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand your point. It's basically the same stuff as the first table but in a different order. Adds so little as to be simply "padding". Nigej (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference I can't help you. I disagree with you and believe the table should stay. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

While yes it is a summary, the argument is that a summary is simply not needed for two columns of data. You can’t compare this election with the last at this point. KD0710 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I'd agree with Drdpw that the third table isn't needed. The big difference with the January election was the votes were scattered across multiple tables. On that page, this summary table helps consolidate the information about the 15 votes that's scattered across four other tables broken up with narrative. That's not the case (yet) here and the summary information is easily gleaned from the other tables. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The third one ought to go. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The only reason the summary table is used in the January article is because all of the tables of votes are split up by days, hence the need for a table to summarize all the votes. At this point there is no need for such a table as the first one presents the exact same information.Yeoutie (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It also doesn't help that the first table is including multiple days of voting while the previous election article broke those results down into sections by days. I'm not sure if we're just deliberately not being consistent in style and formatting here or accidentally being inconsistent, but judging by the results so far, I'm leaning towards deliberate... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The third table is redundant and unnecessary at this time. Please stop reinserting it. Drdpw (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to break down that table into multiple days, and then keep the summary table for all days. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this is how the previous election article does it. But for whatever reason, a number of editors here are doing their level best to make this article as "different" as possible from the previous one because... reasons. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You are the only editor insisting on having it your way on this matter. At some point in time the table may need to be split, but we are not there yet. Drdpw (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Keeping it simple is best, but I though the reason the Jan article did that was because of multiple votes per day. Currently it is just one vote a day at max. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is only 3 rounds at the moment. The initial table is pretty clear. Natural splits will occur as time goes on, but we can’t predict that now. I think there will be a time for a split and a summary table, but right now isn’t that time. No need to rush things. KD0710 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. "Don't jump the gun" applies here. The truth is that the best time to create it is after the election is over. It could be created earlier but only if it clearly serves some useful purpose at that time. Nigej (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems Jordan will no longer be the official Republican nominee. Once a third (including Scalise) nominee is confirmed (or its confirmed Jordan will not be running for renomination), we should put that table back as it can easily show the shifts in nomination. In addition, a section break separating Jordan's vote from whatever other nominee's vote would be prudent. Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Jordan is not going to run for the nomination. Thus, I believe we should reinstate the table. Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We should also split up the first table by day similar to the previous election. It would create a more consistent experience for our readers than these articles that don't seem to be following any particular style for layout and formatting. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. The January article had multiple votes (happening back-to-back in most cases) each day with enough narrative to make breaking up the tables workable. That's not the case here — at least not yet. Breaking the current article up by day would just create a more disjointed experience for readers without any real benefit. That said, come Tuesday or whenever a new Republican nominee is named and voting begins, it may well make sense to begin a new table. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, it might make sense to break the table up more by week or by month than by Republican nominee. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The fact that there's only 3 votes makes the "third table" pretty useless. Let's not pad out with pointless tables. Nigej (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As explained above it's not useless. It's a shame you've chosen to edit war over this though. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The first three should be in one table. There is a natural grouping. Once the fourth vote happens, add the table back. We don’t need to be adding it yet. It will be three in due time. KD0710 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Such a proposal should easily garner consensus. Drdpw (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep agree. I disagreed above back when there were only two votes above, but now that the other tables will be broken up with different nominees I support adding back this one once a fourth vote happens. Yeoutie (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Once the 4th vote inevitably happens, the 3rd table should be added back. Unknown-Tree (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're waiting to add something that is easier to maintain and update in-place than to create all at once, but whatever. Y'all are wild. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Because consensus is to not do so until voting resumes, that is, until after the fourth ballot at the earliest. Drdpw (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you've confused consensus with a vote. We don't vote on everything, and definitely not on undoing a prior consensus with a lesser !vote. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, no vote was taken on this. Perhaps I should not have used the word "consensus". Take a look at what others have said about restoring the 3rd table, the general sentiment appears to be that it ought to be restored no sooner than after the 4th ballot. Drdpw (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

October 19 Developments

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)

This will not be an incomplete election, it will continue whenever. This article will document the election until its conclusion. (It may need to be retitled at some point or another however.) Drdpw (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I get that. I'm just wondering if the McHenry resolution does truly last until January. Do we call this October 2023 - January 2024 Speaker Election? Even though no votes were held in the intervening time? SDudley (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We should wait to see what happens and then decide how to proceed. There's no need to try to move more quickly than the House. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@SDudley: Yes, October 2023 – January 2024 United States Speaker of the House election; but definitely way too soon to execute such a move. Drdpw (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed. I don't want to make any changes yet. I'm trying to be forward thinking about how to approach it. SDudley (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As of 3:30pm ET, it sounds like they are not doing this resolution and want to keep on voting. Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

yes seems I got ahead of myself as I usually do. This is a tough situation to gauge out right now with the conflicting reporting. SDudley (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is one strange time. But it seems the news is "McHenry with more power" is out, third vote is coming sometime soon. Whether its today, tomorrow, or never. I won't even guess. TheCorriynial (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously its a moot point but I would argue that it should be two seperate pages. This page should "end" with McHenry becoming interim speaker. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. This election would still be ongoing as there would not have been a speaker elected. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said below, it depends on what actually happens. Should the interim speaker serve for a long period of time or until the end of the term, an argument could be made to not keep this going. That being said, speculation isn’t all that helpful until we see a clear path. KD0710 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Depends on what it would look like, but I generally agree. KD0710 (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Future votes

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)

Yes per comments at #Table Overload above. These preparation edits shouldn't be happening - indeed it might lead readers to believe a vote is going to happen, when in reality it's just speculation. Maybe when a vote starts they could added, but the best idea is to wait until the vote is completed, and then add the result. Nigej (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Subheadings post-Jordan

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)

With Jim Jordan booted as the nominee, how will the page be structured going forward?

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)

No it’s still the same election. We will just add the new nominee to the infobox and Jordan will stay and have the correct votes listed for “latest round” is my suggestion.

I do think there is an argument to separate the First GOP nomination and Second into two separate sections. KD0710 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want a second page at this stage. Content can be split between the different nominees. The infobox issue is not really that important, anyway we could always two of them. Nigej (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

i would say the infobox should contain Jeffries, whoever the next Republican nominee is, then Jordan, then the “Others” total, with an explanatory note on Jordan’s vote totals explaining that he was the nominee on the first ballot but not the latest/final total Griffindaly (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think using the 1923 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election as an example should work. KD0710 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

i think this is a good idea Matthew McMullin (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, under this model the infobox should contain Jordan, and he will have his 200 votes from the first round and then, most likely, a dash in the final ballot when a speaker is chosen (if that ever happens). Yeoutie (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep the content we have, just have it so it's under a "First/Second nomination" heading. Everything going forward for the Republican nomination, including endorsements, would be under a "Third nomination" heading. We could change this as necessary. Baconheimian (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I would not consider Scalise the First Nomination since it never went to the floor. Jordan is the first, whoever goes to the floor next will be the second. KD0710 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

– As the infobox will ultimately reflect the final successful vote to elect a speaker, it should continue to reflect the current / most recent vote for speaker.

– As this is one ongoing election, the article should not be split. Separate sections can be made for the different nominees.

– As this article is quickly growing in size, now outdated, speculative, and newsy but less noteworthy details need to be trimmed.

Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I propose removing the candidates sub-section. Politicdude (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree. The candidates and endorsements sections seem less and less relevant as the process churns through nominees. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed. No need to track endorsements anymore. SDudley (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed KD0710 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that Scalise shouldn't be considered a nominee. Sure it never went to the floor but for 24 hours he was voted as the conference's nominee and tried to gather votes, etc.Yeoutie (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Scalise's nomination and withdrawal were both significant moments of the election so both should be reflected in the page TheFellaVB (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order

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)

While I understand your point, I think it’s more confusing for a reader. Down the road, I think a reader would prefer to read about all the votes on the floor in one section versus going back and forth between nominations and floor votes. KD0710 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe at some point, some kind of timeline? I could see that becoming useful if it drags out longer than month. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that if the election drags out for a month, we should probably split some of it into October 2023 Republican Conference nomination process for Speaker of the House or something like that. Unless it really drags out, I don’t think a timeline will be warranted. Politicdude (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of the game series timelines in their articles, like Pokemon (video game), for example. Just the date, and maybe the main event, and whether elected or not. TheCorriynial (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why someone would want to read about a later nomination before an earlier floor vote. Then when the reader gets to the floor vote section, they have to figure out which set of nominations it goes between. Chronological order is almost always the least confusing to readers. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think Chronological order makes most sense, but keep the "members who voted other than for nominee" table at the bottom of the article Epicradman123 (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

112 or 122?

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)

I'd footnote the discrepancy until we have the sources to resolve it if we really can't tell. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Jake Sherman says he mistakenly said 122 and it was actually 112 [1] Esolo5002 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Should probably have waited 6 more minutes. 😆

All sources with the 122 number I saw are referencing Shermans first tweet, so I guess we use 112 then. Rogl94 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Related, the table concerning this vote should surely be under the second nomination heading that concerns Jordan right as it relates to his nomination not really whoever is next? Then lead the third nomination with the vote on Monday to choose a new nominee. Yeoutie (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. It ends the nomination of Jordan. KD0710 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd add a footnote for the discrepancy. Always the best policy to make it known to the reader that there is such a discrepancy.

The question is which tally do we think should be in the table (is one the more reliable/authoritatively sourced?). Or do we simply list both somehow.

In the case of the February 14, 1868 vote to impeach Andrew Johnson (impeachment of Andrew Johnson), when researching the topic I discovered that in addition to the total being used on Wikipedia, there was a contradictory also-authoritatively-sourced total with a two-vote differential in regards to the number of "yea" votes. It turns out that in 1868, the Congressional Globe and United States House Journal recorded the votes contradictorily, with the Congressional Globe having recorded two Republican congressman as having been absent from the vote, and the Journal recording those same two congressmen as having been present and having voted to impeach. The article was already using the Globe total. Because the Office of the House Historian's web articles about the impeachment use the Globe total (without making mention of the Journal), I decided that the article would present the Globe total as being the official total, while also noting the discrepancy and explaining why the Globe total is the is being used. Unfortunately, unlike with Johnson's impeachment, there's not such a government historian's work to outsource this decision to. SecretName101 (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

We should list 112-86 as the other was a typo. The majority of sources appear to have used 112 anyways. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

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)

Is the bottom of Jordan's picture level with Jeffries' pin? If so, it is an occasional loading error based on my attempts to look into this. If it is a 1 pixel bug, that that should be a Template:Infobox election problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That’s frustrating. Thanks for looking into it. KD0710 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully whatever is causing it resolves itself over the weekend. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Title of the article if the Election carries on into November

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)

I think that makes sense. Is it better to wait until it’s over to rename? What if it goes even longer? KD0710 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Using a date range is typically what is done for elections, yes. And no need to wait to rename; if the title becomes outdated again, then we can move it again. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but it should be October–November 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, with an en-dash. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Drdpw (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Support I think this is now a very serious discussion to be having after Emmer dropped out and we seem poised to just keep repeating the same hardliner-slightly more moderate back-and-forth. But this is absolutely the right path to go for the page name. GardenCosmos (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

More jumping the gun here. Let's wait until its all over and then decide the title. Nigej (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This issue is irrelevant until late in the day of October 31, which ironically is Halloween. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless congress is already called into recess prior to Oct. 31 with a date for re-adjourning set in November. SecretName101 (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone close this discussion so that it can be archived? It's a null point now. SecretName101 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

McCarthys title

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 former applies to both the Speaker and Leader. KD0710 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

With the election over, House Republican Conference has been updated with Johnson being the leader. As noted at CI, the Speaker serves as the primary spokesperson for his congressional party. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Second Nomination - Austin Scott

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)

Well, CNN seems reliable enough, so if he dropped out, its likely he has. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

All prior reporting NYT, CNN, The Hill, Roll Call, Politico, etc., (including the source currently used in the article) clearly state Scott lost a conference vote. The only tweet in the current section is referencing paywalled Punchbowl News content outlining the votes that went to someone other than Scott or Jordan. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The current sentence about him mounting a late challenge to Jordan prior to that vote seems accurate regardless. Drdpw (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who read the news as it happened. Scott did a last minute run and lost. He did not drop out. SDudley (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but I was surprised to see that. KD0710 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have enough of a reliable source to confirm the vote totals? The tweet linked seems insufficient. KD0710 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The tweet only sources the votes for people other than Jordan and Scott. The 124–81 total is in each of the links provided above. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks. KD0710 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding endorsements?

Should we add endorsements for the third nomination or is this article long enough? Esolo5002 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's long enough. Endorsements don't add very much, and given the revolving door of candidates, will be confusing at best and misleading at worst. I think it is fine to include them as a note, when they refer to someone dropping out, or declining to run and endorsing another though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the current length of this article and the complexity of the GOP nominating process, listing the names will indeed be, as said above, "confusing at best and misleading at worst." As they have been removed from the Scalise candidacy subsection, and ought not be inserted in the next nomination subsection. Drdpw (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Esolo5002 What about spinning them off into a separate article? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that article would be quickly unnecessary, the information for endorsements only really matters before the vote and seeing how it's in less than 24 hours it would be an additional article for little purpose. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Generally for US articles they are done for the presidential race, for example here is the Republican article for 2024, but there are others. There are two for last years' Conservative leadership elections in July to Sept and then in October in the UK. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that generally including endorsements here would be unnecessary. We could include in prose endorsements from particularly relevant pols, though (probably including Trump, McCarthy, Jordan, Gaetz, etc if they make endorsements). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Worth remembering that we're an encyclopedia. We summarize the situation, we don't include all the minute details. Nigej (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

At least, not in the main article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not in any article IMO. It's not our role. Nigej (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Endorsements in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries? --Super Goku V (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

people would disagree with your literalism about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia WP:NOTPAPER SecretName101 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Move Palmer to the withdrawn section as he has dropped out, per Reuters. 203.211.79.215 (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Done: Thank you for noting! Esolo5002 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Republican Nomination Article

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 am suggesting October 2023 Republican nomination for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives KD0710 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Has possibilities; provided it is more than just a content fork of what is in the various sections of this article. ("Background", "Republican nomination", "Proposals to expand the powers of the Speaker pro tempore", and "Calls for a bipartisan coalition") Drdpw (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to split yet, and doing so would likely just make relevant content harder to find. After the election or if this stretches on way longer it could be considered. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the Republican nomination the vast majority of the article here? What would be left if it was split off? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to create a draft and work off that. If it includes more than what is already in this article. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no. What's happening in the Republican conference is too intertwined with what is/isn't happening in the House floor votes. If you break the conference votes on a nomination out, you'd have to still cover most of the content in this article to explain/set up the floor votes. The tables would be main thing that might be only in the other article. I think it better serves the reader to keep it all in one place. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:34, 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)

Yeah, that's a reasonable thing to draft (especially as excessive content gets cut here, so we have an easy place to reference it in case we'd want to reintroduce some of it later). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is useful for the cause. KD0710 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

I propose instead re-ordering the article in chronological order as it had been in this edit by me (which was rolled back).

This is too intertwined to be be sensible to separate.

If you also have a thought as to whether the article would make sense (if un-split) being in chronicle order, please comment on my informal RFC lower down in this talk page. SecretName101 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential Fork

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)

This is already being discussed above; let's not split the discussion up as well :P Elli (talk | contribs) 21:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn’t notice that Politicdude (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I created a rough draft. But other users are correct that it needs to contain substantially more information than is currently on this page to make sense as a fork. Draft:Republican Nomination for the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Roll-call conference vote on Emmer

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)

Emmer dropped out

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)

No, Scalise was not in the infobox either, so Emmer wouldn’t be unless he received a floor vote. Politicdude (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently, this article appears to be following the consensus of the January article, which stated 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)

I think since Jordan was the official nominee for three ballots that he should stay in the infobox. SDudley (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Declined section for nomination

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)

Article should be ordered chronologically (informal RFC)

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)

Pinging editors that have been highly active on this article @Esolo5002 @BarrelProof@Baconheimian @David O. Johnson @Drdpw @Politicdude @RadleyMadish @PCN02WPS @Eduardog3000 @Longestview @Esolo5002 @Yello231 @Davey2116@02rufus02@TobiasHunter@SDudley SecretName101 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that ordering because it just makes the whole page cluttered. Keeping all the House Republican Conference votes within the "Republican nomination" section is more than fine. Otherwise you have HRC votes sandwiched between House floor votes. The current way it is set up is more than fine. TobiasHunter (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly Support. Chronological order is the best way to go about this, but it would make the article too long and I don’t see any solution for that. I would also support a content fork and a timeline, but those are less ideal imo. Politicdude (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with this reördering. Splitting it up the nominations and floor votes makes it harder to follow developments regarding either. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You say this as though these things happened separately/simultaneously. That's not how this is though.

These things did not happen parallel to each other. They happened one after the other. They are a series of events that occurred one after the other. Each event led directly into the next.

First: the first two nominations happened before things could proceed to a floor vote (without a nominee, there's not a vote to have). ::The first two nomination processes happened before things could proceed to a floor vote (without a nominee, there's not a vote to have). Second: the three floor votes failed to result in a speaker. Had that not happened, Jordan would be speaker, and the whole rest of the Republican nomination process would not have ever occurred. Third: because Jordan failed, he attempted to first float a plan to empower the acting speaker. That did not pick up support in his conference. Fourth: Jodan then decided to call a vote on whether to keep him as the speaker nominee, and resulted in him being ousted as nominee. Fourth: Emmer became the nominee. Fifth: A new speaker nominee will be chosen. And until the next nominee is chosen, there is not going to be another floor vote. SecretName101 (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but reordering to be strictly chronological would not make this page easier to understand. Particularly, it would be much harder to track the progression of members' votes, as well as the nominee of the Republican conference (as it would be stuck between large sections on the floor votes). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elli Easy solve: have a table at the bottom that lists ALL rounds of balloting in addition to the separate tables in the chronological sections for the three votes with Jordan and the however many votes with whoever goes to the floor next. Simply title the section with the broader table something like "Summary of floor votes". It's not that hard. With that solve, do you still oppose? SecretName101 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement over not doing that, though at this point I still do not support the proposed reörganization. If we get another unsuccessful floor vote, followed by Republicans ditching their nominee again, I'd be more inclined to support. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

or if one of the alternatives ends up happening. Either for McHenry or some coalition. Reports right now don't have a strong indication one way yet. There will be a nominee tonight, but there is likely to be a roll call vote before any voting tomorrow. And we saw what that did for Jordan and Emmer. SDudley (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently we don't like tables here (see #Table Overload, above). I do think chronological is the way to go, however. We're summarizing an event spread out over a long period of time (which, at present, does not have a clear end date). Maybe once they finally choose a Speaker it can be organized differently. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Splitting the nomination would be confusing and hard to follow, especially since it impacts only one party. KD0710 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, MOS:CHRONO, MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL, and MOS:CURRENT are the primary guidelines regarding chronological order and I don't believe any apply. (So Template:Chronological cannot apply.)

MOS says that 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.

MOS:SNO suggests ordering this like articles that are similar to the topic, which in this case would be the other Speaker election articles. However, this is one of the more complex election articles, which generally don't deal with a number of these sections. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As a compromise on this I have added a "timeline" section that will hopefully be sufficient to allow readers to make chronological sense of how these events unfolded. SecretName101 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

think the timeline is a good way to address this. Keeping the Republican conference votes separate from the House floor votes is more logical and reader-friendly than interweaving them chronologically. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose reordering the article to a strictly chronological format. I think it would make the article more confusing, rather than easier, to understand. This would be especially true for folks wishing to track the progression of members' votes, or those wanting to focus on the Republican nominee drama. I do like the timeline, it provides a brief, thumbnail chronological overview of the whole affair. Drdpw (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm proud of my addition of the timeline (if I might humbly say so). I'm more confortable leaving the article non-chronological now that I've added a timeline that helps readers make chronological sense of the events SecretName101 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think how it is now is good, the sections with splits but a timeline as a summary Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

McCarthy Write In

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)

Do we know all the write-ins are for McCarthy? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

it was either for him or Jordan. looking at this revision history of the page.

(also how do I link to revision pages through Wiki links and not hyperlink?) SDudley (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding links to revision pages, I think Template:Diff is what you're looking for. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Ballot number title

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)

I have changed the January election article infobox accordingly. Drdpw (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! SDudley (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Page name

Should this page not be titled october 2023 battle for the gavel? 137.52.180.169 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No. The current title is consistent with that of previous elections. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No. There are many presiding offices ("gavels") around the world that that might be mistaken to mean, and "battle" for "the gavel" is a use of colloquialisms while "speaker of the United States House Representatives elections" is a literal and precise descriptor of what the event SecretName101 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like "battle for the gavel" has been used to refer to Speaker elections, here is two examples, but it isn't in popular use. A redirect might be fine, but not as the actual name for the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage segment in lede

"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)

This is a sign of a larger problem with the lead, it is bloated. Drdpw (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also true. For example, I don't think we need to list who all received "Other" votes in just the first round alone. Now that the election is settled, we can start to determine what's most relevant and what's leftover as a product of the then-ongoing process. Kafoxe (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

at the very least the last part should be eliminated. Erase the entirety of “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."

this is completely excessive for the lede SecretName101 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kafoxe: Without going over the diff too much, the editor who added the lines cited the article to Yahoo News without realizing it was syndicated content. It seems someone else corrected it to Huffington without realizing HUFFPOST applied. The original second line was The results were seen as establishing opposition to [...] which got changed to This seemingly showed that opposition to [...]

For the Respect for Marriage Act bit, the closest I could find to a good source was from MSNBC. Per WP:MSNBC, it is generally reliable, but [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)

Need for dates in § All ballots: votes not cast for party nominee

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)

Support, although I think it would make more sense to have it as "Oct 17" instead of "October 17" to reduce clutter. Unknown-Tree (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: Seems reasonable to me. Don't mind either way how the date is formatted. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's more complete, but I don't think it's necessary. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Prefer the "Oct 17" idea (see MOS:DATE) to the use of small text. Nigej (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with shortening October to Oct; oppose adding a republican nominee header row, not needed (and would necessite the additon of a really unnecessary democratic nominee header row). Drdpw (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This proposed change does highlight the fact that both versions fail MOS:COLOR which says: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method ..." Either we should delete the colored backgrounds (under Ballot vote cast) or we should use "another method" too. Nigej (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej: Perhaps we could make the nominees have bolded or italic text instead. If that doesn't work, maybe using a symbol would. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support, provides clarity without creating any new issues SecretName101 (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

---

• List of speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections → List of United States House of Representatives speakership elections
• 1855–56 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → 1855–56 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• 1923 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → 1923 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → 2015 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• January 2015 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → January 2015 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• October 2015 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → October 2015 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• 2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → 2017 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• 2019 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → 2019 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• 2021 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → 2021 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → 2023 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• January 2023 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → January 2023 United States House of Representatives speakership election
• October 2023 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election → October 2023 United States House of Representatives speakership election

– 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)

• Procedural close, WP:NCELECT is about national elections and other elections by citizens, not in-body selections. The Speaker of the House is chosen within the House of Representatives itself and not by the citizens (in any case, the Speaker of the House is uppercased per WP:JOBTITLE). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  The policy provides it is for "individual elections and referendums" and a format that is clearly flexible beyond national elections "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [type] election/referendum." The speaker election being held within a national body does not make it any less of an election. BurgeoningContracting 13:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read the guideline as well as WP:JOBTITLES. Speaker of the House does not apply as an election and the uppercased Speaker of the House is allowed to stand as is, per both of those guidelines. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"does not apply as an election"

?

Elections are elections. The guideline makes no such distinctions as far as I am aware whether this is a legislative election. I already cited a party leadership position as an example of an intra-body election that follows similar format and abides by the policy. BurgeoningContracting 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:JOBTITLES which would keep this one at uppercase ("When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office"), and also, if you would, change the lowercasings that you recently moved just before you nommed the 2017 selection of the Speaker of the House, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: If these are rephrased to use a description of the position (as "... speakership") rather than the exact formal title ("Speaker of ..."), then MOS:JOBTITLES would say to lowercase them. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why change the wording to such a degree? Using "Speakership" takes the topic further into inaccuracy, as the proper name is 'Speaker of the House' (see ngrams below). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's essentially the same as why we don't use 2020 President of the United States election. Calling it the 2020 United States presidential election is not inaccurate, and the same is true for the speakership. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• So are you saying that WP:NCELECT does not apply to the selection of the President of the United States? U.S. presidents are selected by a process that takes place within a distinct organization known as the Electoral College. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please bring the lowercase article names above back to uppercase 'Speaker', which were moved by the nominator before this RM, thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn yes, please revert these undiscussed moves. MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:NCGAL control here. I was about to start moving them all back when I found this RM, and I may yet still move them back as this RM is not about the "Speaker" vs. "speaker" change. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Please note the talk page of 2017 United States House of Representatives Speaker election which very recently had an RM which kept the uppercase. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Talk:2017 United States House of Representatives Speaker election? That's a red link. I guess that refers to Talk:2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. That wasn't closed as not moved – it was procedurally withdrawn by the nominator in favor of submitting this RM instead. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The suggested form is similar to 2020 United States presidential election (which we use) as contrasted with 2020 President of the United States election (which we do not use). This is more in keeping with Wikipedia style. The "2023" is a hint to the idea that there have been multiple people elected to the position, so the holders of the position are a category of people, not a single person. These articles are not about the position itself, but rather the selection of who will hold the position. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and support retuning to uppercase 'Speaker', per Randy Kryn's points. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, and yes, the Ngram result, 'Speaker of the House' is a runaway casing for this topic and a proper name. It is even more pronounced the further back the ngrams go. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Regarding elections, A definition of one per Merriam-Webster is an act or process of electing with a further definition of electing being to select by vote for an office, position, or membership and 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 legislation without 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.

In short, NCELECT can apply in this situation, even if those eligible to vote are members of a specific group rather than the citizens of a geographic area. While I do disagree with the proposer's first sentence as NCELECT gives multiple options for the article name, I do believe by process of elimination that the first option at NCELECT is the correct format to use in this case. In my opinion, this would bring this group of articles more in line with a 2018 RfC regarding similar naming matters. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Move to List of elections for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, etc. This formation, as used in the first sentence of the article, is much clearer. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think the proposed titles have a more logical flow, although I would prefer to drop the 'ship' so it was just 1855–56 United States House of Representatives speaker election. Number 57 12:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current name is WP:consistent with all Category:Elections of legislative speakers, which there are many. WP:NCELECT seems to not include this type of election, and should probably be amended, but I doubt this type of election was contemplated for it, even though it is truly an election. However, articles with "Speaker" uppercase in the title should be fixed to "speaker" for consistency. --Jfhutson (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Greetings, user:Jfhutson. NCELECT makes no actual distinction between which elections it applies to and consistency does not justify passing policy over. I'm not in the habit of replying but you raised an interesting point and I reconsidered briefly. I symphatize and often believe in consistency for the sake of stability in Wikipedia when policy is unclear. However, I would argue that there is not enough of a gray area to justify disregarding NCGAL as it is not lacking in clarity in its application, and the previous RM mentioned by Super Goku V serves as further evidence that the community consensus has been to follow the trend as outlined by NCGAL.BurgeoningContracting 03:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  I guess when I say "this type of election," I mean elections where there's not really a widespread usage in RSes. It's very common to see presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional elections referred to that way. It's not unheard of to see "speakership election," but I think based on some Google searches and the ngrams above, that it's not nearly as common. -- Jfhutson (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  I had another thought that NCELECT is using adjectival forms of the offices: presidential, gubernatorial, congressional. "Speakership" is not an adjective, but a noun for the office, equivalent to presidency, governorship, and congressional seat. One would have to come up with an adjective (speakatorial?) to comply with NCELECT. -- JFHutson (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment While I am unconvinced by the argument that WP:NCELECT is not applicable here, it should be uncontroversial to say that WP:NCEVENTS is definitely applicable. This guideline gives the order of article titles as [when] [where] [what], which the proposals meet (and current titles do not). Number 57 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  These do not include “where,” since it’s unnecessary. The “what” is “speaker of the United States House of Representatives election.” It’s not a House of Representatives speaker election that happens to be located in the US, otherwise it could be confused for state speaker elections. — Jfhutson (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Randy, also Support moving all pages back to an uppercase "Speaker" title which was done prior to this RM being opened and was undiscussed (and violates MOS:JOBTITLES and/or WP:NCGAL). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in my reading the rule, there is no [country name or adjectival form] in this case. There is just the year and the type of election. Thus, the title of the office should be used and written as: [Year] [Country election = none present here so empty] [type = Speaker of the United States House]. Yeoutie (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment, I took a second look at WP:NCELECT, and I think we're missing something. The third point of NCELECT says "For elections to particular bodies or offices, default to the form "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [body/office] election"." Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is an office. Ergo we use [date] speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. I think the first bullet of NCELECT should be clarified to say that it's only for offices where there is an accepted adjectival form, such as presidential or gubernatorial. Speakership is not an adjectival form. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Article focused on Republican legislative problems/Republican-Democrat informal coalition

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)