A thought experiment: let’s say that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides to give a special order speech on the floor of the House. As Congress-watchers will know, any Member of the House can sign up to give a speech at the end of the legislative day on any topic they like. It’s free air time (albeit only on C-SPAN) and is usually dominated by a variety of cranks and nonentities (known by the technical term “Gohmerts”). For the most part, these lonely Gohmerts speak to an empty room.

From a parliamentary perspective, special order speeches have no effect. They are not “business” in any sense – just talk. No Member can use the time to bring up legislation or cause any kind of substantive vote. But let’s say that, in this hypothetical, AOC tries to do this very thing. At the beginning of her special order speech, she utters the magical words, “I move that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H. R. 1384, the Green New Deal.”

As noted, the practical effect of saying these words during special order speeches is precisely nothing. She is not under recognition to offer that kind of motion, and if she tries to get the Speaker pro tempore to take the motion seriously, she will get shot down. She cannot, as a matter of House procedure, put that motion before the body at that time. It’s against the rules.

But while she cannot get the presiding officer to take her motion seriously, is there anything preventing others from taking it seriously? Let’s say AOC persists, and yields to a fellow Member to act as reading clerk. That friend dutifully begins reading the bill for amendment, starting with section 1. Maybe AOC has brought a bunch of friends, maybe the whole progressive caucus, to the floor to debate and amend this bill. And they proceed to do so: some Member offers an amendment to section 1. They debate it under regular procedures for the Committee of the Whole (the “five-minute rule” for you Congress nerds). They take votes in some manner, though they can’t use the electronic voting system. I suppose they could hand out paper ballots – cumbersome but not totally impractical.

And they slowly work their way through the bill, considering each section in a pretend Committee of the Whole accordingly to real Committee of the Whole procedures. Word spreads throughout the Capitol: the Green New Deal is being considered on the floor! People are debating its provisions! Amendments are being offered! Maybe it’s clear to people that these are only “fake” proceedings with no actual parliamentary effect – but I like the idea that maybe some Members don’t realize this, and come to the floor with their own amendments thinking they’ll actually be able to get them considered.

Of course, AOC is in charge of the whole (fake) process, and can make up points of order or not yield to people or structure consideration of the bill however she wants. It’s her special order speech after all. But in this hypothetical, AOC has decided to scrupulously adhere to the letter of the House rules and do everything by the book. She provides the equivalent of an “open rule” – any germane amendment is permitted to any portion of the bill. She gives the entire membership of the House the ability to weigh in on the bill, and propose changes – in parliamentary terms, to “perfect” it. Deals are made, compromises reached, and at the end of the process, you have the bill in its final form, with whatever amendments to it that were agreed to. Ideally, it would get to a place where a majority could support it. If not, there are (real) parliamentary mechanisms for going back and trying again until you do.

Contrast this with an alternate scenario, where Speaker Pelosi is reluctantly convinced by her caucus to bring H.R. 1384 to the floor for a vote. It goes through the Rules Committee, which first “self-executes” a variety of changes to the bill that make it palatable to party leaders. In short, it gets watered down. Amendments are required to be submitted to the Rules Committee, which then denies any proposals that might cause “tough votes” for anyone. Only the most anodyne inefficacious amendments are permitted to be offered. Moderates are mad that they can’t water it down further. Progressives are mad that they can’t re-insert all the great things that have been taken out. Republicans are mad that they’re being shut out of the decision-making process entirely.

Now the question becomes: which process is more likely to lead to a vote that can be accurately described as reflecting “the will of the House”? AOC’s fake process, or Pelosi’s real one? As a technical matter, Pelosi’s is the only one that is “legal”. It is the only one that has technically followed the actual rules of the House. The Rules Committee correctly reported their privileged special order of business resolution at the proper time. Official, actual votes using the electronic voting system were taken. AOC, by contrast, was always just engaging in non-legislative debate. The motions made by her and her friends were “illegal” under the rules and had no effect. No bill was actually up for consideration, no reading actually occurred, no amendments were actually offered.

But here’s where perceptions come into it. If it’s just AOC and five friends play-acting on the House floor in this way, there’s a good argument to be made that this is nothing more than a group of sad Gohmerts talking to themselves. But what if it’s 50 friends? 100? Let’s skip to the chase: what if it’s 218 friends who believe that AOC’s (fake) process is better than Pelosi’s real one?

218 is the magic number in the majoritarian House. A group of 218 can do anything, because the best the other 217 can do is cause a vote that they will necessarily lose. Let’s say that AOC’s (fake) process resulted in an amended version of H. R. 1384 that 218 Members (fake) voted for. If those 218 Members want to convert their fake proceedings into real ones, there is absolutely nothing stopping them. At minimum, they could introduce their amended version and use a discharge petition to bring it up for (real) consideration. (There are also various “nuclear” options available, which I would generally not recommend). At the end of the day, 218 could easily ratify whatever was done in the fake proceedings and make them very much real.

All this goes to show that the power of rules is largely the power of perception. What procedures do the Members consider to be legitimate? Using the Rules Committee to routinely waive the rules has been standard practice in the House for over a century. But is it more legitimate than a process that occurs outside the formal rules but more fully in keeping with their provisions? Arguably the latter is more deserving of fealty as better able to reveal the will of the people’s House – and thus, the will of the people.