comment: >
  
  This is helpful; thanks. What incentive would democrats have to vote in favor of keeping the speaker? (Are there examples from history you can point toward?)
context: It means he’s on an insanely short leash. He’s not well liked nor trusted by members of his own caucus >
  
  I did read somewhere that this isn't an insane change. It's a revert to rules pre-2019. The requirement for a caucus head to request it is pretty recent. >
  
  Yeah, the change it’s reversing sounds stranger than the way it was before. >
  
  He'll be stuck constantly trying to please everyone. Of course, just because one person initiates the vote doesn't mean that there'll be a majority to support it, but it certainly could be very disruptive. Since the Freedom Caucus doesn't seem to be interested in actually passing any legislation, they could just use it to disrupt proceedings when they feel like it. No confidence motions could be the new filibuster. >
  
  The Freedom Caucus is just there for political theater and sound bites. Even if Congress was in a joint session to declare war on Russia or something, they’d do some weird shit. >
  
  Which actually fits expectations for fox news watchers who are bored enough to watch the fox news to feel they are alive. >
  
  Yea. Last night during coverage of the McCarthy vote, someone related a recent story about Boebert. In the story she was quoted that, “While we are here (McCarthy election for Speaker), at least the federal government isn’t spending money.”
  Not sure she wasn’t being /s, but if not, hey Lauren. The federal budget for the current FY was passed in the LAST session of Congress. >
  
  A vote to vacate the chair is just that...a vote. It would require the entire House of Representatives to vote to change Speakers so would not be taken lightly. Since the Republicans would still have the majority it is likely they would prevail. This rule was in place for most of the history of the House and was only blocked by Nancy Pelosi recently. It was last used 100 years ago.