For people who've asked why the #House keeps voting, it seems that's literally all they can do AND FURTHER, it's what they **must** do, under the rules of the chamber.
If they are in session, they have to be voting.
If the members-elect choose to adjourn until noon, they are committing their future selves to vote at noon. And keep voting so long as they're in session.
At this point in the House's processes there isn't an option for working on something else. This is the one, singular next order of business, to be overseen by the Clerk without a Speaker to choose a different task.
Procedures are fun!
@volkris
It seems like an odd choice of rules. Do you happen to know the justification for it, or if not justification at least the origin?
A slightly different answer is that because the #House rules are based on a hierarchy with a really powerful Speaker as I mentioned above, it's therefore really important to a) choose a good person to do the job, and b) get consent from members who would agree to live under the chain of command.
Any alternative to electing a new Speaker would at least threaten to undermine those outcomes, so the chamber is given no alternative that might tempt them away from getting it done.
It forces them to compromise now to hopefully avoid problems in the future.
@volkris
Ah, that is an explanation that makes practical sense to me. Thanks!
On the other hand, it seems quite easy to find alternatives that would be more effective at the same goals, e.g. a vote using the Ranked Pairs method can still guarantee an internally divided party with even a slim majority elects one of their own, the one with the most support, on a single ballot.
@volkris
If you don't mind continuing to indulge my curiosity --
Is there also a practical or strategic reason why a bloc of Dems don't offer to cross the aisle in this vote by seeking their own concessions? I could imagine, e.g., an agreement to share power in certain committees.
I imagine the #Democrats have consulted their pollsters and come to a general agreement among themselves that this gridlock is for the best.
Whether they reached that agreement because they honestly fear #McCarthy or because they think this is a political cudgel they can use in cynical political rhetoric we can't really say.
Remember that at any moment the Democrats can resolve all of this by merely doing nothing. Should a couple of them just decline to actively vote, the matter is settled, and McCarthy wins.
It's not only that Democrats aren't crossing the aisle; it's that they are choosing to actively vote in a way that leads to this gridlock.
@gabe
Yeah, different voting methods are options, but there are complications as electing a Speaker is pretty different from electing a legislator.
It's key that a Speaker is an executive with discretionary, direct power over the voter, so the voter might want to negotiate with a candidate about how the power will be used, for example how many amendments a bill might have or the process for removing the Speaker, both issues that came up this week.
I'm not sure how practical it is to hold these negotiations with every candidate. It might be theoretically possible but just not doable in time, leaving the voters less able to shape the rules for their session.
I think it's one of those cases where there's no perfect way, but they work the best they can among non-ideal options.