Talk:Discharge petition

A fact from Discharge petition appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a discharge petition can force a bill to be considered by the United States House of Representatives if the leadership tries to suppress it?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/February.

Wikipedia

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Expansion[edit]

Two notable spots for expansion in this article:

What was the discharge petition like from 1910-1931? Everything I've read simply says that it's "not comparable" to the modern one because it was too different.
How do discharge resolutions in the Senate work? I found those examples of senators signing 'em, but I can't find anything in the rules on them, or any commentary, or anything. Besides, with filibusters, they're pretty irrelevant anyway - if the leadership is that hardcore, the bill is going down anyway. Still, the formal rules would be nice, even if they don't actually matter.

Also, the last comment on analogues in parliamentary systems... I'm kinda out of my depth on that count, so if anyone who knows more on that wants to expand on that or offer a better link, feel free. SnowFire 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last part[edit]

the last part seems to imply that in parlenent ministers in the same party are all required to vote the same way that looks like nonsense i know that isn't the topic of the article but all info within it still needs to be accurate 216.25.247.244 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize[edit]

Only American examples of discharge petitions are given in this article. The only global comparison made is to point out that there's no close analog in parliamentary systems. I'm not sure that discharge petitions can only be found in legislative assemblies in the United States. Perhaps that really is the case, but I'm guessing it's more likely the article is too US-centric. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 01:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This really is a US politics based topic and thus doesn't need a globalize tag; there's already an article on conscience vote in parliamentary systems, which is already mentioned as a rough analogue but a separate topic with its own article. The article is already quite explicit that the main concern is the US House of Representatives, so there's no need to repeat this repeatedly, but it also comes up in US State legislatures. Do you have any sources that indicate that there's a non-US politics topic that is best covered in the same article as the US one? I certainly don't think conscience vote / free vote should be merged with this article, for example, they're different enough to stand on their own. And if hypothetically some other nation does have a similar procedure, it very likely merits its own article and has little direct relationship with this article.

Also, I left your edit as-is, but the 2-letter state abbreviations are almost always used for such Senator reminders (R-OK) and the like, we may have made up a new terminology with (R-Oklahoma). SnowFire (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have specific examples of this kind of procedure outside of the US. I only raised this question because the procedure seems so straightforward that it ought to be common (even if just in countries that don't use the parliamentary system), and yet no such examples are identified. It didn't seem right to me. But if it is indeed a US-only phenomenon, then I'm satisfied. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 02:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As well, I think you're correct about the "OK" versus "Oklahoma" thing. I've seen both "OK" and "Okla." in this context, but "Oklahoma" only occasionally. I made this change simply to make these details clearer to a global audience. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the intent, yeah. I just half-wonder if we should either omit it or turn it into prose since it is a deviation from the standard way it's presented. SnowFire (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Discharge petition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]