I realize it is very unlikely but I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility

@SusanInFlorida Yes, it has. But not in recent history.

@windinhishair which century? before the era of modern parties like democrats and republicans? before TV or radio?

@SusanInFlorida Here are a couple of speaker elections that did not result in the party with the majority in the election electing a speaker of their party (source: electoral-vote.com):

Robert M.T. Hunter, 1839 (elected after 3 days, on the 11th ballot): By this time, the new party alignment had largely shaken out, such that it was the majority Democratic Party vs. the minority Whig Party (joined by the even-more-minority Anti-Masonic Party). None of the folks who got votes in the first round of balloting was acceptable, and so the members eventually worked out the sort of compromise that was characteristic of the antebellum era. Robert M.T. Hunter (W) was a Southerner, but a moderate, and—interestingly—a member of tne minority party (the House was 123 D, 106 W, 11 others). There were a number of Northern Democrats who preferred a moderate from the other party over a fire-breather from their own party.

Howell Cobb, 1849 (elected after 20 days, on the 63rd ballot): This is the scenario that Kevin McCarthy might eventually have to start hoping for. Cobb (D), of Georgia, was unacceptable to a majority of his colleagues in a closely divided Congress (113 D, 107 W, 1 other). However, there was no alternative candidate who could overcome Cobb. And so, the Georgian led on every ballot. What allowed him to be elected is that a weary House eventually agreed that a plurality of the vote was enough for victory, as opposed to a majority. Indeed, in the first round of balloting, Cobb got 103 votes, whereas in the final round, he got... 102.

Nathaniel P. Banks, 1855 (elected after 62 days, on the 133rd ballot): This is the nightmare scenario, albeit the one that many Democrats are probably rooting for. The 1855 speakership election took place right in the midst of the transition from the second party system (again, Democrats vs. Whigs) to the third party system (Republicans vs. Democrats). And so, the 34th Congress featured three major partisan delegations: Democrats (82), Opposition (100) and Know-Nothing (51). The folks calling themselves Opposition would largely, although not universally, end up as Republicans. But that was in the future; the Republican Party had only existed for a little over a year, and the House would not have its first official Republican member until Dec. 1, 1856. Anyhow, the Opposition was the largest faction, but was not a majority and , in any case, struggled to settle on a single candidate. The Democrats, as was so commonly the case in this era, were divided between their Northern and Southern wings. The Know-Nothings refused to throw in with either side, thinking that their candidate might ultimately triumph as the "compromise" option. That was good thinking, because Nathaniel P. Banks (K-N) was indeed a member of that faction. Still, this was the second time the House had to agree to suspend the normal rules, and to allow the speaker to be elected by a plurality rather than a majority.

William Pennington, 1859 (elected after 58 days, on the 44th ballot): Another speakership election that was caught up in the antebellum sectional strife. The leader on the first ballot was a moderate Southern Democrat, Thomas S. Bocock of Virginia. That was unacceptable to many members, including most Northern Democrats and many fire-breathing Southern Democrats. William Pennington (R), of New Jersey, was a conservative Northern Republican. After 2 months, that was good enough for a bare majority of members; he needed 117 votes and he got 117 votes.

Champ Clark, 1917 (elected after 1 day, on the 1st ballot): The Republicans had a plurality of House seats (216), but not a majority. And so, incumbent Champ Clark (D) kept his post based on votes from 212 of the 213 Democrats in the House, plus the three Progressives, one of the two Socialists, and the one Prohibitionist.

Frederick H. Gillett, 1923 (elected after 3 days, on the 9th ballot): Once the Civil War was over, and the Republicans vs. Democrats party alignment firmly in place, the drama of the pre-war years effectively disappeared. It may be hard to believe, but the 1923 speakership election was the only one between the Civil War and the present day to require more than one ballot. Since the 1860s, the majority party puts up its candidate, the minority party puts up its candidate, and the majority party candidate gets the job (with a couple of exceptions, see immediately above and below). In 1923, the Republicans had an overwhelming majority in the House (296 R, 130 D, 1 Socialist), and Frederick W. Gillett (R), who was the incumbent speaker, was the only plausible candidate. However, the progressive Republicans frowned on Gillett's moderate-to-conservative politics, and withheld their support until he gave in on certain concessions, particularly as regards House rules and committee seats. Along with 1820, this is the other speakership contest most likely to find a parallel in 2023.

John Nance Garner, 1931 (elected after 1 day, on the 1st ballot): Technically, this is the last time that a party won a majority in the House, and yet did not seat a member as Speaker. However, that comes with a huge asterisk. This was at the tail end of the period in which new Congresses did not take their seats for 13 months. And in this case, during that 13 months, members were dropping like flies—a total of 14 of them died. And so, after the elections, the House was 217 R, 216 D. However, thanks to all the deaths and special elections, it was 219 D, 214 R by the time Congress convened (there were only 433 seats at that time). And all but one of the 219 Democrats voted for John Nance Garner (D) of Texas, who spent 2 years in the job before becoming Vice President of the United States. That, incidentally, makes him only one of two people to have been both Speaker of the House and President of the Senate (along with Schuyler Colfax).

@windinhishair so, not in this century. before the era of TV. last time was in the depths of the depression. i don't see anything here that translates into our present situation

@SusanInFlorida You asked if it had ever happened "in the history of the house of representatives?" It has. Not recently, and although it may not appear to have much to do with these older situations, we haven't had a party so committed to not governing in our history, so all bets are off.

@windinhishair not really, i included a caveat about "modern era". thanks for confirming that this hasn't happened in the lifetime of any living person either of us know. this isn't even "once in a generation", like last week's "bomb cyclone". it's 3 generations - over 90 years. a "black swan' event (google the book, if you're not familiar with this term)

@windinhishair@SusanInFlorida Plus one could argue that, ironically, that the Republican Party is now in the same state of dying paroxysms as the Whigs were in those pre-Civil War examples when the Republican Party was starting out as the liberal abolitionist alternatives to the Whigs.

@SusanInFlorida[quote] hasn't happened in the lifetime of any living person either of us know[/quote]

But that is because the two major parties have had a strangle hold on our political system in our lifetime but, as has happened several times in our history, you are beginning to see fragmentation in both parties, the rise of independents, and some third/fourth parties begin to gain some traction.

@SusanInFlorida Your initial question did not include a caveat, and I responded to your question completely. Using a caveat later doesn't invalidate my initial response.

Bombogenesis is far from a "once in a generation event". It occurs on average about 45 times a year in the northern hemisphere and about 25 times a year in the southern hemisphere. Please stick to facts when you reference either weather or climatic events. Your propensity for making stuff up as you go is a poor look.

@dancingtongue Yes, indeed. Interesting, isn't it? It is entirely possible that Trump has killed off the Republican Party, and a new party will emerge from its ashes. One thing for certain is that the House will be at best a circus for at least the next two years.