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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tim Parenti (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 6 January 2023 (→‎Order of summary table). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cite this "rule of thumb". There are three Speaker votes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Also, please ping on reply. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

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

Seventh ballot

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Muboshgu is there another way to prevent constant updates? Metallurgist (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I 100 percent agree. Wikipedia isn't a live update stream. KD0710 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Users of Wikipedia need these live updates. Do not lock.173.187.243.166 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOTNP KD0710 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Rektroth Cricket matches get updated after every inning 2601:147:4300:1850:74DD:C12D:7201:F334 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is not a forum for copy pasting exclusively the updates published by the NYT -- Sleyece (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

9th vote total should be 432

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

Done 2604:4080:13F8:8320:41C7:289E:2E50:8698 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEBOLD —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd be happy to update that. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
To be fair he's probably going to miss this round as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is already reflected in the page United States presidential line of succession. X5163x (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While interesting, I'm not sure where in the article we would add this. Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_2023_Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election&oldid=1131840946"