If I'm a US House representative and a member of the numerical minority party, and the majority party is struggling to get consensus on a candidate for House Speaker that I find particularly unpalatable, unsuitable, unproductive or even (potentially) dangerous, I'd certainly want to vote for a better candidate of that party, believing that a vote for someone in my numerical minority party has no chance of winning and so that would just be "throwing my vote away".
But apparently I'm not "seeing the big picture" and would likely be punished for thinking that way.
Wikipedia's Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Selection includes the following:
Representatives are not restricted to voting for the candidate nominated by their party, but generally do, as the outcome of the election effectively determines which party has the majority and consequently will organize the House. As the Constitution does not explicitly state that the speaker must be an incumbent member of the House, it is permissible for representatives to vote for someone who is not a member of the House at the time, and non-members have received a few votes in various speaker elections over the past several years. Every person elected speaker, however, has been a member.
Representatives who choose to vote for someone other than their party's nominated candidate usually vote for someone else in their party or vote "present". Anyone who votes for the other party's candidate would face serious consequences, as was the case when Democrat James Traficant voted for Republican Dennis Hastert in 2001 (107th Congress). In response, the Democrats stripped him of his seniority and he lost all of his committee posts.
Question: Why would voting for a US House Speaker candidate from a numerical majority party be "taboo" and punishable if you're a member of a numerical minority party?
I use the term "numerical majority" to distinguish it from the use of the term "majority" in the block quote "...as the outcome of the election effectively determines which party has the majority and consequently will organize the House"
which seems to define "majority" as the party to which the Speaker is a member rather than something that can be determined by counting.
Context: What originally triggered my question is the current situation for the incoming US House in 2023, there seems to be some debate about a particular candidate and I'm wondering why a bunch of Democrats wouldn't just join up with a bunch of Republicans, acknowledge that the Republicans have a numerical majority and so no Democrat could win a Speaker vote and just vote together on a Republican they all feel would be the most suitable.