A tie in the House

[Joe Republic]

I know this probably isn't the right place to post this, but this board does seem to be the place for Q&A on governmental procedure in general, so...

What if after a general election, the partisan breakdown is 217-217-1?  Which party forms the majority and becomes responsible for allocating Committee chairmanships?  Which party gets to appoint the Speaker?

[Blerpiez]

To be elected sreaker, you need a majority of votes cast, so there would be continuous votes until someone got 218, or enough people miss a vote that one one party gains control.  Most likely they would come to a power-sharing agreement if the deadlock was not broken for a long time

[J. J.]

And what makes you think one person would abstain?

[Joe Republic]

And what makes you think one person would abstain?

Who me?

[A18]

The one person would presumably cast the deciding vote.

[J. J.]

And what makes you think one person would abstain?

Who me?

Yes.  Maybe with some vacancies you could get it, but with one independent, that one person is probably going to decide it (like 1930).

[Joe Republic]

Well yes, that would help decide the election of the Speaker, but let's imagine that the Independent is completely unaffiliated.  Which party forms a majority, and gets to appoint committee chairmanships?

[KEmperor]

Well yes, that would help decide the election of the Speaker, but let's imagine that the Independent is completely unaffiliated.  Which party forms a majority, and gets to appoint committee chairmanships?

Whichever party cuts that independant a better deal.

[Lincoln Republican]

At 217 Republicans, 217 Democrats, 1 Independent, and assuming the Independent remains totally non-aligned -

I believe the majority party from the previous House would be deemed to be the majority party in the new House, and that party would appoint the committee chairs.

The Speakership always belongs to the majority party, so from that perspective, the Speaker would be a member of that party that is deemed to be the majority.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It requires a majority of Representatives voting to elect a Speaker, unless the House should adopt other rules.  In 1853, 1859, and 1923, there was no majority party and it took many votes before a Speaker was elected.

[True Democrat]

At 217 Republicans, 217 Democrats, 1 Independent, and assuming the Independent remains totally non-aligned -

I believe the majority party from the previous House would be deemed to be the majority party in the new House, and that party would appoint the committee chairs.

The Speakership always belongs to the majority party, so from that perspective, the Speaker would be a member of that party that is deemed to be the majority.   

Maybe the Independent would refuse to affiliate with a party, but still vote for a Speaker.

But what would be even weirder is if the party who previously had the majority got to appoint all the Chairmanships and such, but the minority party put forward a speaker.