To the Speaker’s chair or to the back bench? Republicans are in the odd position that the man they elect as majority leader could soon become the Speaker of the House or alternatively might be quickly deposed in a larger leadership shakeup.

Leadership elections are among the most entertaining and bitterly fought contests. While a typical election between a Republican and a Democrat can be intense and nasty, at least there is some clear idea of who is on your team and who is the enemy. Think the Hatfields versus the McCoys. On the other hand, leadership elections are intraparty fights. Think family feud, civil war or the race for prom king or queen.

Leadership races have other peculiarities.

First, the secret ballot results in lies, inflated vote counts and surprising outcomes. Members may make multiple commitments, give ambiguous endorsements or outright lie about their intentions. And there have been many cases of two candidates claiming a combined number of endorsements greater than the total number of members in the caucus.

The main lesson here is that no race is over until the votes are counted. That being said, the claim by acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to have a majority of the caucus is believable because the opposition to the current regime is divided between Boehner and Shadegg and because his vote count is so much higher than his rivals.

Second, leadership races have featured many razor-thin margins that changed history. Imagine if Rep. Edward Madigan (R-Ill.) had beaten Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) for minority whip in 1989 instead of losing by two votes. Or recall the 1976 four-way race for majority leader, in which Rep. Jim Wright (D-Texas) triumphed over favored Rep. Phil Burton (D-Calif.) and Rep. Richard Bolling (D-Mo.), winning the final match-up by a single vote.

Third, elephants (and donkeys) never forget. Members remember for decades who supported and opposed them.

But this race for majority leader has an odd quality in that it is likely that Republicans will have a new Speaker within a few years and because there is so much turmoil with the Jack Abramoff scandal and the coming midterm elections.

The position of majority leader has always been a steppingstone to the speakership, at least for Democrats. Speakers Sam Rayburn (D-Texas), John McCormack (D-Mass.), Carl Albert (D-Okla.), Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.), Wright and Tom Foley (D-Wash.) and many earlier Speakers held that post before winning the top job. No majority leader who has run for Speaker has been defeated. Republicans have changed their eight-year term-limit rule to allow Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to stay beyond 2006, but few think he will stay beyond 2008.

And with low approval numbers for the president and Congress and the likelihood of Republican losses in the midterm elections, it would not be surprising if Hastert left after 2006. All of this magnifies the importance of the race for majority leader. It is a race for the next Speaker.

But at the same time, the new majority leader will be in an especially vulnerable spot. Imagine that Blunt wins the election and then finds himself deeply immersed in the Abramoff scandal. Or consider the tenuous position of a new majority leader, elected in part to improve the party’s standing, up for reelection after the party loses 10 seats in the midterm elections. This would be the Gingrich 1998 scenario all over again, in which a small number of maverick Republicans might refuse to support the current regime and insist on new leadership elections.

The election next week will be significant, but it may be months before we know whether it is for the Speaker’s gavel or the booby prize.

Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.