Great line from a great movie...
https://youtu.be/wcMCS_6oung?t=36
As I was following today's episode of Speaker Shitdown, I was puzzled by two striking moments, which simply shouldn't happen during a meeting of the US House of Representives (well, sorta... nobody has actually been seated yet, so we technically don't have a House yet, which makes no sense how members-elect are conducting the House business of choosing a Speaker, but I digress...)
After the 6th ballot failed, a motion was made to adjourn to 8pm EST, so technically a recess. In a simple voice vote, it certainly sounded like the Nays had it. Yet, the clerk (presiding temporarily as chair since there is no Speaker) determined that the Yeas had it. Didn't even ask for a second vote to confirm. Nobody motioned for a role call vote, which was mind numbing given that the Nays very clearly had it.
When the group returned at 8pm, there was a motion to adjourn until tomorrow. This time the voice vote was actually too close to call, though still sounded like Nays had it. Mics were picking up chatter that sounded like somebody instructing the clerk that "the Yeas had it" (I was watching CSPAN, so don't know what other feeds picked up). But thankfully somebody motioned for a role call vote, which after some time and confusion, was conducted. Like with the votes for Speaker, a majority vote is 218. After the votes were given, with several late votes counted (I think they were either via proxy or changed?), the total was read as 216 Yea and 214 Nay and others not voting.
The motion to adjourn to tomorrow FAILED to attain a majority approval (218). Yet the clerk ruled that the motion passed. It didn't. It failed. They should still be there right now.
Either these idiots are indeed actors, and don't actually know what the hell is going on, or they do and just don't care.
In any case, this show needs a better editor to make sure mistakes like this don't make the final cut...
-----------UPDATE-------------
Reviewed tape. Here's the first vote:
https://youtu.be/jERbq_84vHs?t=4881
Fat white dude with glasses to her right appears to be the person literally telling her what to say. There were absolutely calls for a ROLL CALL. They were flat out ignored. Then she says "does a member demand the As and As?" What a clown show!
Now to the second adjournment vote at 8pm EST
https://youtu.be/jERbq_84vHs?t=17628
Again, this lady has to be fed every line and then reading from a script. She has no clue what she is doing. Again, the Nays had the voice vote, but chaos and confusion ensues. Fatty White Dude keeps trying to coach her along. He tells her that SHE has to call it as she "hears it." But she doesn't call it. At 4:54:54 HE tells her to say "the Ayes have it the yeas and nays are ordered," then corrected to "are requested." SHE didn't make the judgement. Fatty White Dude did. Who the hell is he? Does have have any procedural authority? Doubt it!
At 4:55:08 he tells her "continue to read." To read WHAT? Oh, the script right in front of her.
https://youtu.be/jERbq_84vHs?t=18624
When the time expired, Yea-204, Nay-207, NV-23. Motion fails. Yet, votes were continued to be allowed, eventually she has to ask "have all members voted"? With a response of "no." Eventually the graphic gets to Y-209, N-211. She asks if anyone wishes to change their vote. Responses of "no." Are vote changes even allowed?? Votes just keep getting added, eventually Y-216, N-214, NV-4. Again, NO MAJORITY. Script didn't go according to plan... the script she is LITERALLY READING FROM.
after this fiasco...
/End scene.
---------UPDATE 4---------
Having watched video more closely today, it appears I mistook the man in question for Rep Jason Smith. Don't know whoever that guy is, the one basically telling the clerk what to say. I did notice how he didn't have to do that at all today. Maybe they read this thread and put more work into memorizing their lines and script last night? 🤔😂 As for Smith, he is still indeed a MAGA badass, and far less husky than the dude in glasses who was feeding lines. Apologies for the mistake and any confusion it may have caused!
I have had the role of running many "official" meetings governed by Roberts Rule of Order. Whenever elections or other serious business happens, I have always scripted out the process to make sure that it's done properly. I have also polled people to get a sense of what is going to happen and have talking tracks based upon the likely scenario. I also have a cheat sheet about RRO with me with definitions and workflows in case somebody really wants to make a challenge for some reason.
In situations where the group may have to vote to suspend rules (say a quorum is present to have a meeting, but not enough member organizations to hold a leadership vote), I generally line up people to make the motion and the second ahead of time to suspend those bylaws. And then I'll explain what is going on to the group so that they understand what decision needs to be made to move the business forward.
It's near impossible to memorize everything. You literally have to eat, breathe, and sleep RRO for a long time to intricately know it by memory. The fact that I've formally participated or run these things ~2 dozen times makes me seem like an expert. But the reality is that I have just enough experience to prepare for the situation ahead of time so it looks way better than I feel it is going. And it's not at all unusual to refer to the Parliamentarian to get a second opinion on how to proceed.
You might be reading into this a little too much. To me it seems like the Clerk is just doing their best to get through a very formal process that doesn't happen all that often. Encouraging NV to change so everybody can go home when the sense of the body is that nothing is going to happen of consequence is a prudent way to do it. I really didn't get a sense that the Clerk was trying to pull a fast one as all objections seemed to be heard in a proper manner.
Notes for the process, cheat sheet, sure. But that's not what was going on. Watch and listen again. At times she's word for word ready from a script with lines already prepared for real time dependant in their outcomes, yet were already written as if predetermined.
She's not just looking to him for an opinion. He's literally telling her exactly what to say, for nearly everything she says that she doesn't read from the paper, and she's repeating it word for word (except for when she fumbled with the "As and As" bit 😂)
Appreciate the perspective from a parliamentarian with situational experience, but what we're watching and hearing in this case, is so blatant. Perhaps you're not reading enough into it...