So why doesn’t the #SpeakerOfTheHouse vote just drop candidates every round of voting until only two remain, like in many other similar systems?
One reason is that they aren't voting for a mere representative but rather for an administrator who will have quite a lot of authority in the chamber. That's how the House is designed.
They need to come to active consensus about who is going to set the operations of the House, as they will all have to live under those actions.
Dropping candidates to force a winner doesn't make as much sense when the winner needs such buy-in from the members he oversees.
PLUS, there are legitimate and healthy negotiations tied to the election of a Speaker.
@volkris you would still have those negotiations (look at what happened when the UK Conservatives chose their leader). It just means you have a real incentive to get a deal made and you avoid stubborn hangouts holding the rest at ransom (or if they did, they could end up even worse out).
I see the point in the consensus (by majority) argument. But whichever way the current situation plays out, there are going to be some pretty unhappy people, so will problems really be avoided?
I'd emphasize the authority part, not the consensus part.
It makes me want to allude to "consent of the governed."
The majority voting process is a test to make sure most of the House is really on board with the vision by which the Speaker aims his authority, and he will need their continued support over and over as he proceeds.
If the Speaker can't pass this test when being handed his authority, there's a good chance he will fail when he tries to implement the plan he's proposed, causing more trouble in short order.
Really, this is a vote on whether the House should proceed in a direction, and if the members of the House can't decide, then it probably shouldn't until they can.
