What About a Speaker of the Whole House?

Early in American history, the House of Representatives was the most important part of the federal government. This was intentional, and it was no accident that the Constitution's provisions for it come first in that document.

In recent decades, by contrast, the House has barely been able to function at all.

Although Republicans had a slight majority during the last two years, divisions between moderates and extreme conservatives made life miserable for the Speakers they elected ... and then sometimes threw out. Thanks to a small number of party holdouts, the only important legislation the "Republican" House could enact reflected bipartisan deals with moderate Democrats, since Republicans couldn't get legislation through just with the support of their own members.

When the House reconvenes in January, the majority Republican party will again have only a tiny numerical advantage, one that could well go away after the 2026 elections.

Given the uncertainty about its future composition, this might, therefore, be an ideal time for the House to reform itself into a body where its party composition is less important. This may be necessary before it can again be a chamber where serious policy alternatives are debated reasonably and good legislation is regularly enacted.

It is time to recognize that our Constitution does not lend itself to "party government."

Party government resembles what columnist Thomas Friedman called "one-party democracy": "a two-party system where only one party is interested in governing and the other is in constant blocking mode."

Let's not forget that "party government" is a relatively recent development here. As recently as half a century ago, when I wrote my college textbook, strict party-line voting in Congress was generally limited to electing the officers in the House and Senate.

Actual legislation was mostly enacted by ad hoc bipartisan coalitions knocked together issue-by-issue, with very different coalitions for different bills.

Going back to this system would be reactionary, I suppose, but if the older system was better than what we have now, then to be reactionary would also be progressive. "Progress through reaction!" — how does that grab you?

In a way, this would only be official recognition of how the House already has to act in order to get much done. But it would make coalitions the normal approach again, not the last resort.

Rather than merely going back to this approach, the House of Representatives should also make the speakership of the House into a nonpartisan position.

The Constitution merely states that the Speaker and other officers of the House are chosen by the House. It says nothing about party membership, and indeed parties are not mentioned at all in the document they wrote! The Founders considered political parties to be a terrible idea.

The Speaker is one of our top national leaders and next in the line of succession to the presidency if something happens to the president and vice president.

We need a Speaker of the whole House, an office separate from its Democratic and Republican leaders, an office more like the Speaker of the House of Commons in London.

The English speaker rules impartially when chairing sessions of the House of Commons.

Instead of being picked by the Democratic or Republican caucus in the House, our Speaker should be elected by secret ballot of the whole House, with voting by ranked choice.

Candidates with the lowest support would be eliminated one by one, with the next choices of their supporters being counted instead. This process would continue until a candidate has a majority of the whole House.

The Speaker of the whole House could then allow votes on all legislation for which there appears to be majority support, without regard to the party composition of that support.

We would be back to ad hoc bipartisan coalitions, a newly functional House, and more active participation in legislation by all members of the House, not just the party leaders.