He only needed 214. Speaker gets elected with a majority of those voting for individuals. Those voting present or abstaining bring down the number needed to get a majority.
Kerry Bentivolio explanation on the Speaker Boehner Vote
- Thread starter Darguth
- Start date
He only needed 214. Speaker gets elected with a majority of those voting for individuals. Those voting present or abstaining bring down the number needed to get a majority.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
I thought it was the majority of all those voting. Maybe there was some disinformation out there. But I recall one explanation of the plan to oust him was just to get 17 people or more to vote present, and that under no circumstance would there be a risk of Pelosi winning, since neither she nor Boehner would have had a majority.
From the Congressional Research Service:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30857.pdf
There were lots of misinformation out there and its funny to read so many here (not you) claim that they knew all the rules and procedures of voting for Speaker.
talkingpointes
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,503
This is what we call the liberty process. This is what makes our candidates stronger and more agile later-on. Amash with just ONE screw up learned quick. This is what also makes me so proud of the liberty folks -- holding santa's feet to the fire, (and throwing snowballs at hannity).
supermario21
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,060
Look, if the whole point was bloodying Boehner up, then it was a success. Even though it didn't require 2 ballots, you still had lots of drama in the chamber. If you watched live, you saw this. Every time someone didn't vote or voted for someone, there were loud gasps and it was pretty exciting. Heck Bachmann and Blackburn had to vote just to get him over the top. Mulvaney and Labrador also generated attention when they just sat in the chamber and refused to vote.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,457
Louie Gohmert had a radio interview where he talked about the many techniques used to convince members to vote for Boehner. It appears that lobbyists from home Districts often played roles in pressuring a "get along" with Boehner vote.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,943
"We the People" are in charge of nothing. "Our elected representatives" are in charge of nothing.
Bureaucrats and lobbyists - unelected by anyone and accountable to no one - are in charge of everything.
Krzysztof Lesiak
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 681
I am still mad at Kerry. Our other four guys voted right: Justin Amash, for Raul Labrador, Thomas Massie, for Justin Amash, Walter Jones, for David Walker, and Steve Stockman, present.
Kerry's first vote was a REALLY shitty one. If he doesn't get his act together ASAP, well, idk, this guy is supposed to be our ally after all! He was a big Ron Paul supporter!!
Kerry's first vote was a REALLY shitty one. If he doesn't get his act together ASAP, well, idk, this guy is supposed to be our ally after all! He was a big Ron Paul supporter!!
Good grief. This just seems absolutely nuts to me. Even Ron himself voted in favor of the current speaker every single time. Now we're expecting our candidates to go even further than Ron and just make a completely meaningless symbolic vote that will only hurt their chances of being able to accomplish things in the house.
torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
did the purge start before or after this vote?
first blood is drawn, no more play along to get along.
they are saying GTFO.
supermario21
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,060
Not only did Ron vote for Speaker Gingrich, he did so despite Gingrich openly campaigning against him in his 1996 PRIMARY!! Against a converted Democrat! If anyone had justification to hold a grudge against the speaker, he did.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
It is different because it was the consensus push back after OUR guys got purged. I'm pretty sure Ron would have voted against Boehner in this instance, he sure sounded proud of the guys who did, on Cavuto yesterday. But it was his first day, so note taken, and I'll look at his going forward actions. It may have been a starting stumble, or not. I'm sure we'll find out, over time.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
He didn't do things for his personal gain. He saw no purpose in that then, but did help push Gingrich out as time went on. THIS time it was OUR guys purged and I'm pretty sure he'd have voted against Boehner. Did you listen to him on Cavuto yesterday? He definitely thought the vote against Boehner owed something to his legacy and people becoming open to his issues and candidates who supported them.
I just care about how he and the others vote on the actual issues. He's one for one so far on that as he voted against borrowing more money to pay for the Sandy relief efforts.
phill4paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 46,967
1
1836
Guest
Give this a rest.
Kerry is perhaps the most likely member to face a primary in 2014 from an establishment-backed candidate in McCotter's ultra-red district.
Didya think that maybe he doesn't want to run in there pissing off leadership and running around screaming on day 1? He is not Massie, who won a safe seat outright, or Amash, who has defended a seat, or any of these other guys who can afford to make this stand even if it fails, which it did.
Kerry would stand to lose a lot now and in the future by taking that stand and I, for one, think what he did is fine. He needs to go along with leadership on procedural votes (have you all forgotten that none other than Justin Amash has done that very thing time after time, even saying on Facebook he "votes with his party" on things like that? He only gained the leverage to start swinging when he was kicked off his committee...) and vote his conscience on bills.
With any luck, he can defend liberty as a sound consistent vote but remain off the target list for 2014 when, after defending the seat, he would gain the ability to attack leadership openly without so much fear of a primary challenge.
Comprende? Kerry can't afford to be on something like this if it is a losing effort.
Kerry is perhaps the most likely member to face a primary in 2014 from an establishment-backed candidate in McCotter's ultra-red district.
Didya think that maybe he doesn't want to run in there pissing off leadership and running around screaming on day 1? He is not Massie, who won a safe seat outright, or Amash, who has defended a seat, or any of these other guys who can afford to make this stand even if it fails, which it did.
Kerry would stand to lose a lot now and in the future by taking that stand and I, for one, think what he did is fine. He needs to go along with leadership on procedural votes (have you all forgotten that none other than Justin Amash has done that very thing time after time, even saying on Facebook he "votes with his party" on things like that? He only gained the leverage to start swinging when he was kicked off his committee...) and vote his conscience on bills.
With any luck, he can defend liberty as a sound consistent vote but remain off the target list for 2014 when, after defending the seat, he would gain the ability to attack leadership openly without so much fear of a primary challenge.
Comprende? Kerry can't afford to be on something like this if it is a losing effort.